# Male and Female Modesty



## Reformed Covenanter

Al Martin has a sermon on the need for modest dress among Christian women:

SermonAudio.com - Modesty and the Gospel


----------



## Pergamum

What does he define as modest? I cannot listen but am interested.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pergamum said:


> What does he define as modest? I cannot listen but am interested.



I think that should be obvious. Do you know immodesty when you see it?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does he define as modest? I cannot listen but am interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that should be obvious. Do you know immodesty when you see it?
Click to expand...


Exactly! But who is _you_. Immodesty is actually somewhat cultural so it isn't a question that is immaterial. There are certain cultures where it does not tempt men to see women clad in a manner that would be very tempting to Western males.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SemperFideles said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does he define as modest? I cannot listen but am interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that should be obvious. Do you know immodesty when you see it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly! But who is _you_. Immodesty is actually somewhat cultural so it isn't a question that is immaterial. There are certain cultures where it does not tempt men to see women clad in a manner that would be very tempting to Western males.
Click to expand...


Though in my culture, Christian women should dress in a way that does not cause men (in my culture) to lust.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Daniel Ritchie said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that should be obvious. Do you know immodesty when you see it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! But who is _you_. Immodesty is actually somewhat cultural so it isn't a question that is immaterial. There are certain cultures where it does not tempt men to see women clad in a manner that would be very tempting to Western males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though in my culture, Christian women should dress in a way that does not cause men (in my culture) to lust.
Click to expand...


Thanks. Is that what Pastor Al says?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SemperFideles said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! But who is _you_. Immodesty is actually somewhat cultural so it isn't a question that is immaterial. There are certain cultures where it does not tempt men to see women clad in a manner that would be very tempting to Western males.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though in my culture, Christian women should dress in a way that does not cause men (in my culture) to lust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks. Is that what Pastor Al says?
Click to expand...


No problem, I plan to listen to it later today; just thought I would post it in advance for the benefit of others. I presumes Pastor Martin would take this view. I think a good Biblical example of this is 1 Cor. 11:2-16, where a lady not wearing a veil was an act of immodesty (she "dishonoured her head"), while in western society today it is not immodest.


----------



## JOwen

Daniel Ritchie said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Though in my culture, Christian women should dress in a way that does not cause men (in my culture) to lust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. Is that what Pastor Al says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem, I plan to listen to it later today; just thought I would post it in advance for the benefit of others. I presumes Pastor Martin would take this view. I think a good Biblical example of this is 1 Cor. 11:2-16, where a lady not wearing a veil was an act of immodesty (she "dishonoured her head"), while in western society today it is not immodest.
Click to expand...


Ummmm, there is nothing in that passage that says anything about cultural immodesty. It does however say things like "ordinance" and "light of nature". These are not cultural but biblical.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

JOwen said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. Is that what Pastor Al says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem, I plan to listen to it later today; just thought I would post it in advance for the benefit of others. I presumes Pastor Martin would take this view. I think a good Biblical example of this is 1 Cor. 11:2-16, where a lady not wearing a veil was an act of immodesty (she "dishonoured her head"), while in western society today it is not immodest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummmm, there is nothing in that passage that says anything about cultural immodesty. It does however say things like "ordinance" and "light of nature". These are not cultural but biblical.
Click to expand...


The light of nature is referring to long hair, while the word ordinances really means "teachings", yet this is not even referring to the headcovering as Paul says "2. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3. But I want you to understand that", therefore, he changes the subject when he speaks about the headcovering. I agree that the underlying principle in that passage is Biblical, but the literal application has expired. Note that in the next chapter Paul explains that rationale for covering parts of the body: "on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty" (1 Cor. 12:23), thus the reason why a woman's hair was to be covered is because the public display of it in that culture was seen as immodest. Moreover, I have yet to see any modern proponents of head-coverings make their women wear veils which fully cover the hair. A hat which merely covers part of the head, while the lady has two-feet of hair on display, does not conform to what Paul told the Corinthians.

Anyway, I have not got time to go into it further; see my RPW book for more.


----------



## Coram Deo

Daniel,

Personally I have trouble labeling 1 Cor. 11 as a mere worship practice But more of a headship practice.... I guess it is one view if they believe it is linked to the following sections which describe worship under the Lord Supper sacrament. Difficult to say for sure since there was no chapter or verse distinction until the Geneva Bible.

I do believe it holds out a modesty clause in addition to other passages teachings woman to cover for modesty.. Passages in Genesis, Song, Isaiah 47:2, etc..

Personally I hold to headcoverings for modesty and still believe them to be for the Christian woman today.. I believe for a woman to show her hair is immodest, as hair is very lustful, even for the Western Man today.. I see nothing cultural about it.

I also do believe that the whole head constitute the woman.. So I am a proponent that believes the whole hair is to be covered.

Many of the Early Church Fathers taught that even the face of the woman was to be covered... It is plausible and I could lean that way but I am not going to be dogmatic about the face. 

All in all, I believe that a wrap that covers the hair is required and would be closer to a muslim shayla or a hijab head scarf aleast according to my Hebrew and Greek study of the words.

I am also not for hats which is a protected head gear for the cold and not a sign of submission to headship.

As for my wife.... Currently she covers in worship and she understands my position.. I have been given her space to study my work and come to it on her own without "Lording It Over Her".. Husbands must dwell with their wives in Understanding. A time may come when I politely ask her to cover even if it is not her conviction for her husband but that is not today... Time and Space must be given..


Here are a few photos describing what I meant according to my Hebrew and Greek word studies....

Here is a Christian woman from England around the year 800 A.D.







Here is a Modern Day Christian woman from the Middle East, I believe from Israel.









Daniel Ritchie said:


> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem, I plan to listen to it later today; just thought I would post it in advance for the benefit of others. I presumes Pastor Martin would take this view. I think a good Biblical example of this is 1 Cor. 11:2-16, where a lady not wearing a veil was an act of immodesty (she "dishonoured her head"), while in western society today it is not immodest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, there is nothing in that passage that says anything about cultural immodesty. It does however say things like "ordinance" and "light of nature". These are not cultural but biblical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The light of nature is referring to long hair, while the word ordinances really means "teachings", yet this is not even referring to the headcovering as Paul says "2. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3. But I want you to understand that", therefore, he changes the subject when he speaks about the headcovering. I agree that the underlying principle in that passage is Biblical, but the literal application has expired. Note that in the next chapter Paul explains that rationale for covering parts of the body: "on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty" (1 Cor. 12:23), thus the reason why a woman's hair was to be covered is because the public display of it in that culture was seen as immodest. Moreover, I have yet to see any modern proponents of head-coverings make their women wear veils which fully cover the hair. A hat which merely covers part of the head, while the lady has two-feet of hair on display, does not conform to what Paul told the Corinthians.
> 
> Anyway, I have not got time to go into it further; see my RPW book for more.
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BJClark

He's talking about the ten things that are magnets to men's eyes..

1. Dresses or skirts w/ slits to the knee or above..

2. Dresses, skirts, jeans that hug the buttocks

3. Upper garmets that hug the breast

4. unbuttoned blouses that have one button left covering the breasts, and if you lean over your breasts are exposed.

5. Sleeveless blouses or long arm holes that men sitting behind you can look and see in your shirt or dress..

6. low rise skirts and pants that barely cover the buttocks

7. See through clothing

8. Skirts & dresses that are so short that if you move around shows your undergarmets, and everyone can see them.

9. Pants, slacks, jeans that hug the buttocks, hips and crotch..

10. Bared middrift..


----------



## Coram Deo

Well for me and others men I have talked to, say that the calf between the knee and ankle are lustful and are magnets to men's eyes....

The same for the hair... The Song of Solomon talks about how hair is very lustful and erotic.. Again for me and other men I have talk to agree that hair is a magnet for men's eyes and can be a problem for us men.....






BJClark said:


> He's talking about the ten things that are magnets to men's eyes..
> 
> 1. Dresses or skirts w/ slits to the knee or above..
> 
> 2. Dresses, skirts, jeans that hug the buttocks
> 
> 3. Upper garmets that hug the breast
> 
> 4. unbuttoned blouses that have one button left covering the breasts, and if you lean over your breasts are exposed.
> 
> 5. Sleeveless blouses or long arm holes that men sitting behind you can look and see in your shirt or dress..
> 
> 6. low rise skirts and pants that barely cover the buttocks
> 
> 7. See through clothing
> 
> 8. Skirts & dresses that are so short that if you move around shows your undergarmets, and everyone can see them.
> 
> 9. Pants, slacks, jeans that hug the buttocks, hips and crotch..
> 
> 10. Bared middrift..


----------



## BJClark

Coram Deo;



> Well for me and others men I have talked to, say that the calf between the knee and ankle are lustful and are magnets to men's eyes....
> 
> The same for the hair... The Song of Solomon talks about how hair is very lustful and erotic.. Again for me and other men I have talk to agree that hair is a magnet for men's eyes and can be a problem for us men.....



While I understand that men can lust over all of these things, as a woman, it is a HUGE burden to carry and to know that no matter what I wear, I am being held accountable for being responsible for that man's lust. Where is the man's responsibility for his heart before God in this?

I know men who lust more over women who are fully covered modestly, thinking about what they can't see and what these women ARE covering, and mentally undressing her fully clothed body..but as a woman, I have no control over a man's lustful thoughts, no matter what I'm wearing.

Granted I can wear things *I* feel are not going to cause a man to lust, but that doesn't mean he's NOT going to lust anyway, if that is what's in his heart to do.

Should men and women live in totally seperate societies so that men will never have to deal with their lustful thoughts before God? That to me would be THE ONLY way to prevent men from lusting over women at all.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Also keep in mind that prostitution, rape, and the like are still problems in societies where women are fully covered (head to toe).


----------



## VictorBravo

BJClark said:


> Coram Deo;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well for me and others men I have talked to, say that the calf between the knee and ankle are lustful and are magnets to men's eyes....
> 
> The same for the hair... The Song of Solomon talks about how hair is very lustful and erotic.. Again for me and other men I have talk to agree that hair is a magnet for men's eyes and can be a problem for us men.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I understand that men can lust over all of these things, as a woman, it is a HUGE burden to carry and to know that no matter what I wear, I am being held accountable for being responsible for that man's lust. Where is the man's responsibility for his heart before God in this?
> 
> I know men who lust more over women who are fully covered modestly, thinking about what they can't see and what these women ARE covering, and mentally undressing her fully clothed body..but as a woman, I have no control over a man's lustful thoughts, no matter what I'm wearing.
> 
> Granted I can wear things *I* feel are not going to cause a man to lust, but that doesn't mean he's NOT going to lust anyway, if that is what's in his heart to do.
> 
> Should men and women live in totally seperate societies so that men will never have to deal with their lustful thoughts before God? That to me would be THE ONLY way to prevent men from lusting over women at all.
Click to expand...


Excellent point, Bobbi. 

Mat 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Jesus spoke to the greater sin. I don't recall him directly condemning a woman's clothing.

I think the modesty issue is similar to the "decent and good order" issue. The key is to avoid unnecessary distractions, _not_ prevent another from sinning.


----------



## Coram Deo

I agree that it is also Man's responsibility to avoid lust... But the two issues I brought out I believe have direct bearing within scripture and what scripture describes as modest for the woman...

We have on the board been over this before and I am not really wanting to get into it very deeply right now but I believe Isaiah 47:2 describes modesty for the woman by the covering of the hair and the entire leg. The Song describes woman covered modestly with a veil over their head and in Genesis the Rebekah covers her head with a covering before seeing a man she had never met before..

In other passages it talks about the veil being removed from the woman as punishment since it was lewd to be uncovered...

So when men have problems with certain areas of the body and the scripture describes them as covered and to uncover is to show forth nakedness then I believe I am correct that they deal with modesty and it does rest there on the woman but it does not take away mans responsibilities to not lust after woman... 

Both Woman and Man must be guarded when dealing with modesty. For themselves and for each other....


----------



## JBaldwin

To add one more thought to what Bobbi and Vic have already said: 

Modesty for a woman is not only in clothing, but in attitude. I have seen fully clothed women drive men to near insanity with their words and their eyes. If a woman is honest before the Lord, she will be careful not only with her dress, but with her attitude.


----------



## DMcFadden

One of the Christian satire sites had a goof ad for "Emerjeans: the missional fashion of the emerging church." 

It read: "You Christian girls know where those boys are looking, so why not tell them about Jesus while they're there? Meet them where they're at." With embroidery on the rear pocket it advertised: "Five skin-tight Gospel messages: turn your eyes upon Jesus; Jesus is my boyfriend; looking fine for Jesus; baby got Jesus; or Jesus, like Buddha, only better! Available in Daisy Dukes."

Obviously satire. But . . . not all that far off the mark unfortunately.


----------



## Coram Deo

Jbaldwin,

Yes, it is in attitude but also outwardly in clothing... The scripture speaks of both...

Calvin speaks of modesty of the attitude in the passage Isaiah 3:16

"Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:"

This does not distract from outward modesty or outward coverings. Isaiah 47:2, Song, Genesis, Timothy, etc...



JBaldwin said:


> To add one more thought to what Bobbi and Vic have already said:
> 
> Modesty for a woman is not only in clothing, but in attitude. I have seen fully clothed women drive men to near insanity with their words and their eyes. If a woman is honest before the Lord, she will be careful not only with her dress, but with her attitude.


----------



## JBaldwin

Coram Deo said:


> Jbaldwin,
> 
> Yes, it is in attitude but also outwardly in clothing... The scripture speaks of both...
> 
> Calvin speaks of modesty of the attitude in the passage Isaiah 3:16
> 
> *"Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go*, and making a tinkling with their feet:"
> 
> This does not distract from outward modesty or outward coverings. Isaiah 47:2, Song, Genesis, Timothy, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> To add one more thought to what Bobbi and Vic have already said:
> 
> Modesty for a woman is not only in clothing, but in attitude. I have seen fully clothed women drive men to near insanity with their words and their eyes. If a woman is honest before the Lord, she will be careful not only with her dress, but with her attitude.
Click to expand...


If you read my post carefully, you will that is what I said. It is not only clothing, but attitude. The only "clothing" I see mentioned here is something that might resemble bells on the feet.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Michael

Thankful for your useful input; even though I am not convinced of your position, I respect your view and think that you make a number of very good points.

Moreover it should be noted that 1 Cor. 11:2-16 is not merely referring to public worship, because in verses 17-18 Paul goes on to distinguish this from what goes on specifically when they "come together as a church". Thus if one is going to say that headcovering is a moral principle, then ladies should wear proper headcoverings (not hats) on all occasions which they are seen in public. 





Coram Deo said:


> Daniel,
> 
> Personally I have trouble labeling 1 Cor. 11 as a mere worship practice But more of a headship practice.... I guess it is one view if they believe it is linked to the following sections which describe worship under the Lord Supper sacrament. Difficult to say for sure since there was no chapter or verse distinction until the Geneva Bible.
> 
> I do believe it holds out a modesty clause in addition to other passages teachings woman to cover for modesty.. Passages in Genesis, Song, Isaiah 47:2, etc..
> 
> Personally I hold to headcoverings for modesty and still believe them to be for the Christian woman today.. I believe for a woman to show her hair is immodest, as hair is very lustful, even for the Western Man today.. I see nothing cultural about it.
> 
> I also do believe that the whole head constitute the woman.. So I am a proponent that believes the whole hair is to be covered.
> 
> Many of the Early Church Fathers taught that even the face of the woman was to be covered... It is plausible and I could lean that way but I am not going to be dogmatic about the face.
> 
> All in all, I believe that a wrap that covers the hair is required and would be closer to a muslim shayla or a hijab head scarf aleast according to my Hebrew and Greek study of the words.
> 
> I am also not for hats which is a protected head gear for the cold and not a sign of submission to headship.
> 
> As for my wife.... Currently she covers in worship and she understands my position.. I have been given her space to study my work and come to it on her own without "Lording It Over Her".. Husbands must dwell with their wives in Understanding. A time may come when I politely ask her to cover even if it is not her conviction for her husband but that is not today... Time and Space must be given..
> 
> 
> Here are a few photos describing what I meant according to my Hebrew and Greek word studies....
> 
> Here is a Christian woman from England around the year 800 A.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a Modern Day Christian woman from the Middle East, I believe from Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, there is nothing in that passage that says anything about cultural immodesty. It does however say things like "ordinance" and "light of nature". These are not cultural but biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The light of nature is referring to long hair, while the word ordinances really means "teachings", yet this is not even referring to the headcovering as Paul says "2. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3. But I want you to understand that", therefore, he changes the subject when he speaks about the headcovering. I agree that the underlying principle in that passage is Biblical, but the literal application has expired. Note that in the next chapter Paul explains that rationale for covering parts of the body: "on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty" (1 Cor. 12:23), thus the reason why a woman's hair was to be covered is because the public display of it in that culture was seen as immodest. Moreover, I have yet to see any modern proponents of head-coverings make their women wear veils which fully cover the hair. A hat which merely covers part of the head, while the lady has two-feet of hair on display, does not conform to what Paul told the Corinthians.
> 
> Anyway, I have not got time to go into it further; see my RPW book for more.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Coram Deo

Passages Concerning Modesty

"Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them." (Genesis 3:21)

"And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. For she [had] said unto the servant, What man [is] this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant [had] said, It [is] my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself." (Genesis 24:64,65)

“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God. " (Deuteronomy 22:5)

"‘And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD. The priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. Then the priest shall stand the woman before the LORD, uncover the woman’s head, and put the offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse." (Numbers 5:16-18)

“The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me.” (Song of Solomon 5:7)

"Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:" (Isaiah 3:16)

“Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy veil, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen.” (Isaiah 47:2-3)

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works." (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart" (1 Peter 3:3-4)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Coram Deo

Thank You Brother.. 

I also concur with what you said regarding 1 Cor. 11:2-16 and what is said in verses 17-18. In fact I agree with your entire last paragraph... 




Daniel Ritchie said:


> Michael
> 
> Thankful for your useful input; even though I am not convinced of your position, I respect your view and think that you make a number of very good points.
> 
> Moreover it should be noted that 1 Cor. 11:2-16 is not merely referring to public worship, because in verses 17-18 Paul goes on to distinguish this from what goes on specifically when they "come together as a church". Thus if one is going to say that headcovering is a moral principle, then ladies should wear proper headcoverings (not hats) on all occasions which they are seen in public.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Coram Deo said:


> Thank You Brother..
> 
> I also concur with what you said regarding 1 Cor. 11:2-16 and what is said in verses 17-18. In fact I agree with your entire last paragraph...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michael
> 
> Thankful for your useful input; even though I am not convinced of your position, I respect your view and think that you make a number of very good points.
> 
> Moreover it should be noted that 1 Cor. 11:2-16 is not merely referring to public worship, because in verses 17-18 Paul goes on to distinguish this from what goes on specifically when they "come together as a church". Thus if one is going to say that headcovering is a moral principle, then ladies should wear proper headcoverings (not hats) on all occasions which they are seen in public.
Click to expand...


Concerning verses 17-18 Pastor Sam Waldron was the first to point this out to me; he has a series of four sermons on women in the church (on tape) which I found useful.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

Does modesty ever apply to men as well? Like men wearing tight shirts that show their muscles? Or men wearing no sleeved shirts or even short sleeved shirts? Or men wearing shorts? I know some women lust when they see men's arms or legs or muscles.


----------



## Coram Deo

Yes they apply... Because of Isaiah 47:2 I will not wear shorts in the summer... My legs are always covered...

I won't wear tight shirts either.. They are always loose fitting... But I am far from muscular... 



Simply_Nikki said:


> Does modesty ever apply to men as well? Like men wearing tight shirts that show their muscles? Or men wearing no sleeved shirts or even short sleeved shirts? Or men wearing shorts? I know some women lust when they see men's arms or legs or muscles.


----------



## christianyouth

Coram Deo said:


> Yes they apply... Because of Isaiah 47:2 I will not wear shorts in the summer... My legs are always covered...



Sorry brother, but I'm not sure if you are being serious or joking?


----------



## Coram Deo

I was quite serious.... It has been aleast 4 years since I donned my last pair of shorts.... I have gotten quite use to wearing pants in 100 degree days....

I am also never without a shirt on... Including at the pool or at the empty beach... A tee shirt is a must.... And unless with my wife privately never at a pool or beach in mixed company...



christianyouth said:


> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they apply... Because of Isaiah 47:2 I will not wear shorts in the summer... My legs are always covered...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry brother, but I'm not sure if you are being serious or joking?
Click to expand...


----------



## Simply_Nikki

Coram Deo said:


> I was quite serious.... It has been aleast 4 years since I donned my last pair of shorts.... I have gotten quite use to wearing pants in 100 degree days....
> 
> I am also never without a shirt on... Including at the pool or at the empty beach... A tee shirt is a must.... And unless with my wife privately never at a pool or beach in mixed company...
> 
> 
> 
> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they apply... Because of Isaiah 47:2 I will not wear shorts in the summer... My legs are always covered...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry brother, but I'm not sure if you are being serious or joking?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
Wait you wear pants in the pool?


----------



## Coram Deo

Well, you know I do not remember the last time I went swimming accept when I went over a 25 foot dam while whitewater kayaking and I was wearing a wet suit under a loose top and loose fitting almost to the ankles pants (only a few inches away from the ankle).. And I was swimming for my life.... 

So If I went swimming again I would probably wear that loose fitting pants...
I have seen swim wear designed for modesty and covered legs down to the ankles for sell on the internet for both man and woman... 




Simply_Nikki said:


> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was quite serious.... It has been aleast 4 years since I donned my last pair of shorts.... I have gotten quite use to wearing pants in 100 degree days....
> 
> I am also never without a shirt on... Including at the pool or at the empty beach... A tee shirt is a must.... And unless with my wife privately never at a pool or beach in mixed company...
> 
> 
> 
> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry brother, but I'm not sure if you are being serious or joking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait you wear pants in the pool?
Click to expand...


----------



## Simply_Nikki

Coram Deo said:


> Well, you know I do not remember the last time I went swimming accept when I went over a 25 foot dam while whitewater kayaking and I was wearing a wet suit under a loose top and loose fitting almost to the ankles pants (only a few inches away from the ankle).. And I was swimming for my life....
> 
> So If I went swimming again I would probably wear that loose fitting pants...
> I have seen swim wear designed for modesty and covered legs down to the ankles for sell on the internet for both man and woman...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was quite serious.... It has been aleast 4 years since I donned my last pair of shorts.... I have gotten quite use to wearing pants in 100 degree days....
> 
> I am also never without a shirt on... Including at the pool or at the empty beach... A tee shirt is a must.... And unless with my wife privately never at a pool or beach in mixed company...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait you wear pants in the pool?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
Ah okay, didn't know they had those. =)


----------



## Coram Deo

Here is one being sold by wholesome wear: Modest Swimwear







Here is another from Modest BodyKini







I think you get the picture... 
There are hundreds of websites like these that sell modest swimwear... they are polyester so they don't hold water and weigh you down....




Simply_Nikki said:


> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you know I do not remember the last time I went swimming accept when I went over a 25 foot dam while whitewater kayaking and I was wearing a wet suit under a loose top and loose fitting almost to the ankles pants (only a few inches away from the ankle).. And I was swimming for my life....
> 
> So If I went swimming again I would probably wear that loose fitting pants...
> I have seen swim wear designed for modesty and covered legs down to the ankles for sell on the internet for both man and woman...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait you wear pants in the pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah okay, didn't know they had those. =)
Click to expand...


----------



## Amazing Grace

Coram Deo said:


> Yes they apply... Because of Isaiah 47:2 I will not wear shorts in the summer... My legs are always covered...
> 
> I won't wear tight shirts either.. They are always loose fitting... But I am far from muscular...
> 
> 
> 
> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does modesty ever apply to men as well? Like men wearing tight shirts that show their muscles? Or men wearing no sleeved shirts or even short sleeved shirts? Or men wearing shorts? I know some women lust when they see men's arms or legs or muscles.
Click to expand...


Michael, Michael. When does the list end with you brother? Id like to know the gnosis one has to have to get this understanding form Isaiah 47. I am at a loss for words Michael. I wear shorts in the winter months most of the time.


----------



## VictorBravo

Amazing Grace said:


> I wear shorts in the winter months most of the time.



Heh. I never wear shorts, but not because of modesty. It's an old rancher habit: My boots look funny with shorts.

Besides, my legs have such albedo that people would have to wear sunglasses even on an overcast day. It's just not right to put them through that.


----------



## Pergamum

Men do not seem to be under the same standards of requirements do they? Jesus stripped down to wash his disciples feet didn't he? 

Can men skinny dip together to avoid getting their clothes wet? Can women do the same? If out in the boonies and no opposite gender is around.


What about sports where special clothing is an aid to the sports. Such as running, boxing, etc. The purpose is not lust but is better utility.



Also, Coram Deo, your "Modest" woman from the middle east is still showing her hair, which is a no-no is hair is lustful. You need ALL the hair tucked in, like they do in Muslim societies.


----------



## Coram Deo

Amazing Grace said:


> Michael, Michael. When does the list end with you brother?



Truly, if you only knew it all.... 



Amazing Grace said:


> Id like to know the gnosis one has to have to get this understanding form Isaiah 47.



I am not sure if this warrants a response... Besides the fact I had to look up the word gnosis... ... Anyway, I already said I did not want to get deeply into right now, besides the fact we have already covered this ground previous in a post, but I do believe that was before your time here....

Its very simple... God says in Isaiah 47 "make bare the leg," and "Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen. God is using a moral analogy here and he is using a example of modesty... What more can be said.. If you make bare the leg (7785 Showq: hip, leg, thigh, entire leg) Your nakedness shall be uncovered..... Yea, thy shame shall be seen.



Amazing Grace said:


> I am at a loss for words Michael. I wear shorts in the winter months most of the time.



I wears knit shorts to bed but that is about it... Neither Winter, Spring, Summer, or Fall would you catch me death in a pair of shorts...


----------



## Pergamum

Also, what rules apply for physical exams (couhg cough) and gyno visits? 

Should only women be gynos and only men do the cough cough exam? 

Also, how does modestly affect healthcare? How about teaching people (including children) anatomy.


----------



## Pergamum

Coram Deo: Ha, you do have a long list, but I am sure it is due to your zeal for the Lord. Blessings to you brother. No one can ever accuse you of being careless with your convictions.


----------



## Christusregnat

Daniel Ritchie said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Though in my culture, Christian women should dress in a way that does not cause men (in my culture) to lust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. Is that what Pastor Al says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem, I plan to listen to it later today; just thought I would post it in advance for the benefit of others. I presumes Pastor Martin would take this view. I think a good Biblical example of this is 1 Cor. 11:2-16, where a lady not wearing a veil was an act of immodesty (she "dishonoured her head"), while in western society today it is not immodest.
Click to expand...





The veil, if I'm not mistaken, is the hair:

"for her hair is given her for a covering."

If you seem to be contentious on this, I'm told to have no such custom. 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Coram Deo

Pergy,

Do these work for ya..... *Chuckling* I would prefer these above all else...  *Grinning from ear to ear*















Pergamum said:


> Also, Coram Deo, your "Modest" woman from the middle east is still showing her hair, which is a no-no is hair is lustful. You need ALL the hair tucked in, like they do in Muslim societies.


----------



## Christusregnat

WHAT'S WITH ALL THESE IMMODEST PICS!!!??? I can see their eye-lashes!

Cheers,

Adam




Coram Deo said:


> Daniel,
> 
> 
> Here is a Christian woman from England around the year 800 A.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a Modern Day Christian woman from the Middle East, I believe from Israel.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

How about this one


----------



## Coram Deo

You can read Early Church Father Tertullian on that one......


"Let them know that the whole head constitutes "the woman." Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which "power" ought to be "had on the head:" the veil is their yoke.

…. who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face."

Tertullian on the Veiling of Virgins A.D. 198





Simply_Nikki said:


> How about this one


----------



## Simply_Nikki

Good thing Tertullian wasn't divinely inspired =D



Coram Deo said:


> You can read Early Church Father Tertullian on that one......
> 
> 
> "Let them know that the whole head constitutes "the woman." Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which "power" ought to be "had on the head:" the veil is their yoke.
> 
> …. who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face."
> 
> Tertullian on the Veiling of Virgins A.D. 198
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this one
Click to expand...


----------



## Coram Deo

Nikki

Here is another Early Church Fathers quotes regarding that picture....



1. "Canon Seventeenth. Of woman, that they should cover their faces and their heads."

Hippolytus (170-236 a.d.)



2. "And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled.”
"It has also been commanded that the head should be veiled and the face covered. For it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men.

Clement of Alexandria (153-217 a.d.)







Simply_Nikki said:


> Good thing Tertullian wasn't divinely inspired =D
> 
> 
> 
> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can read Early Church Father Tertullian on that one......
> 
> 
> "Let them know that the whole head constitutes "the woman." Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which "power" ought to be "had on the head:" the veil is their yoke.
> 
> …. who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face."
> 
> Tertullian on the Veiling of Virgins A.D. 198
Click to expand...


----------



## Pergamum

Interesting brother. Times have changed. For the better or for the worse?


----------



## Pergamum

Coram Deo: I don't know, these are quite attractive still - better go with the burlap sack over the face. Or the full ninja suit.


----------



## Coram Deo

Pergy: 


Way to Funny......

Though I will admit there is a some attractiveness to face veils that is not lustful... More of a beauty of modesty and of admiration for the one covered.......




Pergamum said:


> Coram Deo: I don't know, these are quite attractive still - better go with the burlap sack over the face. Or the full ninja suit.


----------



## calgal

Oh Noes! Their HANDS are showing!  So let me see if I understand this thought process correctly: women are tempting and men are unable to withstand the temptation of a woman's hair or eyelashes or hands or any part of her body. How nice to have that power.  


Simply_Nikki said:


> Good thing Tertullian wasn't divinely inspired =D
> 
> 
> 
> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can read Early Church Father Tertullian on that one......
> 
> 
> "Let them know that the whole head constitutes "the woman." Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which "power" ought to be "had on the head:" the veil is their yoke.
> 
> …. who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face."
> 
> Tertullian on the Veiling of Virgins A.D. 198
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Coram Deo

Calgal,

We have gotten alittle funny in this thread with extremes like the burkas.. No one is saying that hands must be hidden.. They are not listed anywhere in the scriptures along with other parts... 

Those of us who support more fuller coverings are using descriptions from scripture of what should be covered... Body, Legs, head, etc....



calgal said:


> Oh Noes! Their HANDS are showing!  So let me see if I understand this thought process correctly: women are tempting and men are unable to withstand the temptation of a woman's hair or eyelashes or hands or any part of her body. How nice to have that power.
> 
> 
> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing Tertullian wasn't divinely inspired =D
> 
> 
> 
> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can read Early Church Father Tertullian on that one......
> 
> 
> "Let them know that the whole head constitutes "the woman." Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which "power" ought to be "had on the head:" the veil is their yoke.
> 
> …. who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face."
> 
> Tertullian on the Veiling of Virgins A.D. 198
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## calgal

Michael,

this is not funny really. The amazing thing is that the coverings do NOT take all responsibility from the man and frankly you guys have just as much responsibility for YOUR reactions as we women do to dress appropriately. 



Coram Deo said:


> Calgal,
> 
> We have gotten alittle funny in this thread with extremes like the burkas.. No one is saying that hands must be hidden.. They are not listed anywhere in the scriptures along with other parts...
> 
> Those of us who support more fuller coverings are using descriptions from scripture of what should be covered... Body, Legs, head, etc....
> 
> 
> 
> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Noes! Their HANDS are showing!  So let me see if I understand this thought process correctly: women are tempting and men are unable to withstand the temptation of a woman's hair or eyelashes or hands or any part of her body. How nice to have that power.
> 
> 
> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing Tertullian wasn't divinely inspired =D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Gesetveemet

Those hands look like a hairy boxers hands and are not at all tempting to me.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Gesetveemet said:


> Those hands look like a hairy boxers hands and are not at all tempting to me.


----------



## BJClark

Could you please provide a link for men's modest swimwear as well?? I'd like to see what it looks like..

The only things I could find are with lycra wetsuits which is pretty much skin tight on men, or jeans and a t-shirt and well, men with wet t-shirts clinging to their muscle bound bodies can cause women to lust as well...


----------



## calgal

BJClark said:


> Could you please provide a link for men's modest swimwear as well?? I'd like to see what it looks like..
> 
> The only things I could find are with lycra wetsuits which is pretty much skin tight on men, or jeans and a t-shirt and well, men with wet t-shirts clinging to their muscle bound bodies can cause women to lust as well...



Board shorts + wet T-shirt = Men's modest swimwear? I guess we get to lust after the muscle bound bodies from the protection of our burkhas......


----------



## Coram Deo

Calgal,

I did not say it was all funny... I said the burka aspect was being funny... I was quite serious in my views on modesty... If you had read me early on in the thread I already stated that we guys have as much responsibility as you woman do for modesty....

Both are responsible.. One to dress modestly which is commanded and not cause their brothers to stumble and the other to not commit adultery by lusting with their eyes after woman...

I will also state that man have just has much responsibility to dress modesty for woman and not cause them to stumble.... which is why I am fully clad in the summer when it is a balmy 100 degree day and Maryland is humid so it feels hotter... No shirt is removed, my legs are covered down past my ankles and all my clothing is loose and not form fitting....

Michael





calgal said:


> Michael,
> 
> this is not funny really. The amazing thing is that the coverings do NOT take all responsibility from the man and frankly you guys have just as much responsibility for YOUR reactions as we women do to dress appropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calgal,
> 
> We have gotten alittle funny in this thread with extremes like the burkas.. No one is saying that hands must be hidden.. They are not listed anywhere in the scriptures along with other parts...
> 
> Those of us who support more fuller coverings are using descriptions from scripture of what should be covered... Body, Legs, head, etc....
> 
> 
> 
> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Noes! Their HANDS are showing!  So let me see if I understand this thought process correctly: women are tempting and men are unable to withstand the temptation of a woman's hair or eyelashes or hands or any part of her body. How nice to have that power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Coram Deo

Here is what I would wear... It is lightweight and does not hold water.

Beta ARs are made from new Gore-Tex® Pro Shell fabric and offer improved protection, breathability, durability and suppleness











BJClark said:


> Could you please provide a link for men's modest swimwear as well?? I'd like to see what it looks like..
> 
> The only things I could find are with lycra wetsuits which is pretty much skin tight on men, or jeans and a t-shirt and well, men with wet t-shirts clinging to their muscle bound bodies can cause women to lust as well...


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> Coram Deo: I don't know, these are quite attractive still - better go with the burlap sack over the face. Or the full ninja suit.



In seminary one of my roomates had a Catholic friend who gave him a statue of the Virgin Mary. Of course, that was problematic for us Reformed folk. But we didn't want to be jerks and tell the Catholic friend to go buzz off. So we got a whole bunch of electrical tape, wrapped it around the statue of Mary, and it looked like the perfect ninja!


----------



## Neopatriarch

Coram Deo said:


> Do these work for ya..... *Chuckling* I would prefer these above all else...  *Grinning from ear to ear*



Not bad. It looks Muslimish though. 

I'm curious, does anyone know of a good website that sells headcoverings for Christian women? A site with photos.


----------



## Coram Deo

Well there is Headcoverings by She Maketh Herself Coverings

it has alot of anabaptistic headcoverings from mennonite to brethren, to amish to hutterite, to german baptist, etc....



Neopatriarch said:


> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do these work for ya..... *Chuckling* I would prefer these above all else...  *Grinning from ear to ear*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad. It looks Muslimish though.
> 
> I'm curious, does anyone know of a good website that sells headcoverings for Christian women? A site with photos.
Click to expand...


----------



## Michael Butterfield

*Incredulous*



SemperFideles said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does he define as modest? I cannot listen but am interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that should be obvious. Do you know immodesty when you see it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly! But who is _you_. Immodesty is actually somewhat cultural so it isn't a question that is immaterial. There are certain cultures where it does not tempt men to see women clad in a manner that would be very tempting to Western males.
Click to expand...


I hate to say it, no really I do not. This statement is so inane I can hardly believe it was made on this board! So, if it is permissible for women to run around naked in some cultures where it would not be tempting that is not immodest. Right! I cannot begin to express my incredulity over this statement, so I will leave it as is, besides, Jerrold Lewis has already made a more sane reply.


----------



## Michael Butterfield

calgal said:


> Oh Noes! Their HANDS are showing!  So let me see if I understand this thought process correctly: women are tempting and men are unable to withstand the temptation of a woman's hair or eyelashes or hands or any part of her body. How nice to have that power.
> 
> 
> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing Tertullian wasn't divinely inspired =D
> 
> 
> 
> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can read Early Church Father Tertullian on that one......
> 
> 
> "Let them know that the whole head constitutes "the woman." Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which "power" ought to be "had on the head:" the veil is their yoke.
> 
> …. who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face."
> 
> Tertullian on the Veiling of Virgins A.D. 198
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This is part of the problem, most women do not know how much power they do have.


----------



## Michael Butterfield

calgal said:


> Michael,
> 
> this is not funny really. The amazing thing is that the coverings do NOT take all responsibility from the man and frankly you guys have just as much responsibility for YOUR reactions as we women do to dress appropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calgal,
> 
> We have gotten alittle funny in this thread with extremes like the burkas.. No one is saying that hands must be hidden.. They are not listed anywhere in the scriptures along with other parts...
> 
> Those of us who support more fuller coverings are using descriptions from scripture of what should be covered... Body, Legs, head, etc....
> 
> 
> 
> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Noes! Their HANDS are showing!  So let me see if I understand this thought process correctly: women are tempting and men are unable to withstand the temptation of a woman's hair or eyelashes or hands or any part of her body. How nice to have that power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Not much to say here, but typical. I have never met a man or female who honestly espouses a true view of modest that would argue against the fact that men have a huge responsibility. Frankly, the world does not need your help in making us stumble. Frankly, from my perspective a good deal of women and I mean Christian women so called love to flaunt it just about as much as the world and they do not mind tell you so by exposing all kinds of body parts that ought to be covered and/or wearing clothing that reveals the rest.


----------



## JBaldwin

This discussion reminds me of what went on after the fall. Everyone started blaming everyone else. The fact is, we are each responsible before God and for the sake of our brothers and sisters in Christ to dress and behave in a way that will not cause them to stumble. Likewise, we are also responsible to guard our eyes and our thoughts. It was Job who said that he made a covenant with his eyes that he would not look on a maid. Job 31:1 

Job had the right idea.


----------



## calgal

Michael Butterfield said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> this is not funny really. The amazing thing is that the coverings do NOT take all responsibility from the man and frankly you guys have just as much responsibility for YOUR reactions as we women do to dress appropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calgal,
> 
> We have gotten alittle funny in this thread with extremes like the burkas.. No one is saying that hands must be hidden.. They are not listed anywhere in the scriptures along with other parts...
> 
> Those of us who support more fuller coverings are using descriptions from scripture of what should be covered... Body, Legs, head, etc....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not much to say here, but typical. I have never met a man or female who honestly espouses a true view of modest that would argue against the fact that men have a huge responsibility. Frankly, the world does not need your help in making us stumble. Frankly, from my perspective a good deal of women and I mean Christian women so called love to flaunt it just about as much as the world and they do not mind tell you so by exposing all kinds of body parts that ought to be covered and/or wearing clothing that reveals the rest.
Click to expand...

Some questions for you: 
What is modest for a man or a woman? Is it wearing certain things or acting a certain way? How are the modest folks to influence the less modest ones? Is there a sanction for the modesty impaired? Serious question. 

Next thought: I attended Calvary Chapel for a while and they tended to go to the opposite extreme. I was somewhat bemused to see a young lady in a bikini lying on a lounge chair outside the sanctuary listening to the sermon. Their logic is that anyone is welcome. I do not agree with them but do not think it appropriate to be the clothing nazi. The immodestly dressed man or woman could be a new Christian and may need a friendly and gentle introduction to dressing and acting like a gentleman or a lady. 

My question to you pastor is this: how can you welcome someone with less than modest dress and gently and lovingly teach them to value themselves more highly and dress appropriately?


----------



## calgal

I am in trouble then sister! 



Simply_Nikki said:


> I dunno.. it's pretty hard to see in there... and God help you if you need glasses... then you'd have to look like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJClark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please provide a link for men's modest swimwear as well?? I'd like to see what it looks like..
> 
> The only things I could find are with lycra wetsuits which is pretty much skin tight on men, or jeans and a t-shirt and well, men with wet t-shirts clinging to their muscle bound bodies can cause women to lust as well...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Board shorts + wet T-shirt = Men's modest swimwear? I guess we get to lust after the muscle bound bodies from the protection of our burkhas......
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Amazing Grace

Michael Butterfield said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that should be obvious. Do you know immodesty when you see it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! But who is _you_. Immodesty is actually somewhat cultural so it isn't a question that is immaterial. There are certain cultures where it does not tempt men to see women clad in a manner that would be very tempting to Western males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to say it, no really I do not. This statement is so inane I can hardly believe it was made on this board! So, if it is permissible for women to run around naked in some cultures where it would not be tempting that is not immodest. Right! I cannot begin to express my incredulity over this statement, so I will leave it as is, besides, Jerrold Lewis has already made a more sane reply.
Click to expand...



Michael, you must have heard something that Rich did not say. How you can somehow conclude Rich was speaking about nudity? Also, you must have a thesaurus right next to you when you post. I just cannot believe what is happening lately on the board. In my comment to Michael, coram deo, I was not trying to make light of his belief on this matter, nor anyone else who follows the same path. Perhaps I am overreacting, but I am sensing a very legalistic approach to life lately from certain members cloaked under the guise of honor to God. dancing, screennames,not wearing shorts, women in full coverings, drama, pictures of oneself, polotical affiliation = believers. Do you for one second think that God is honored by this stuff? It is orthopraxy laced with orthodoxy. I sense a teaching of man having free will when it comes to morality, where man can choose the self conceived 'right' ethical path by heaping on his back rules and obligations in order to 'please' God. I read in the Talmud that" God control's everything, except Godliness" And I fear I am reading the same words here lately. Are these things the 'good works' we are created in Christ Jesus to do? Did He die on the cross, with the weight of His sheep's sins on His shoulders, to forgive men from wearing shorts or watching drama? Can sinful man, actually become moral on his own? This is infused righteousness. That somehow upon regeneration, I can actually have my own personal righteousness as a new creation that becomes inherit to me. And upon doing works, I am sanctified. Isaiah 64:6 declares "all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags", this is AFTER being justified. If I believe I am doing good works, and look to them as some pleasing offering to God, this is self righteousness no matter how you slice it. My ONLY hope is to be clothed with the imputed righteousness of Christ alone, nothing else. The RCC states: *"By the observance of the commandments of God and the Church, faith co-operating with good works, they gain an increase of that righteousness which was received by the grace of Christ, and are the more justified."* the thirty-second canon of the sixth session of the Council of Trent says: "*If any one shall say that the good works of a justified man are the gift of God in such a sense that they are not also the good merits of the justified man himself, or that a justified man, by the good works which are done by him through the grace of God, and the merit of Christ, of whom he is a living member, does not truly deserve increase of grace, eternal life, and the actual possession of eternal life if he die in grace, and also an increase of glory, let him be ANATHAMA."* 

Please do not hear what I am not saying, I agree a believer will hate what he once loved and love what he once hated. WHat I find troubling is the lists some carry around to what they love and hate, and then seem to find pleasure in doing or refraining from the such. Titus 3:4-5, “But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.” This is the grand truth of the Gospel. One that goes beyond justification into sanctification. I agree Michael and others do not adhere to these 'rules' to be declared just, but just as works are not the ground of our justification, neither are they the ground of our sanctification, if they were, then salvation is not all God. 

I love what the Scots confession says:
* "We willingly spoil ourselves of all honor and glory of our own salvation and redemption, as we also do of our regeneration and sanctification."*

Justification by Grace alone remains the sole ground of the Christian. We are never called to think beyond this scope. Sanctification is never to be viewed as something we do in addition to what God alone has done for our justification. So instead of infused justification, we now have some infused sanctification that man somehow "works out" by adhearing to peccadillo rules.. To become obsessed and scrupulous about things that do not matter is actually condemned by Paul.


----------



## Pergamum

Michael Butterfield said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that should be obvious. Do you know immodesty when you see it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! But who is _you_. Immodesty is actually somewhat cultural so it isn't a question that is immaterial. There are certain cultures where it does not tempt men to see women clad in a manner that would be very tempting to Western males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to say it, no really I do not. This statement is so inane I can hardly believe it was made on this board! So, if it is permissible for women to run around naked in some cultures where it would not be tempting that is not immodest. Right! I cannot begin to express my incredulity over this statement, so I will leave it as is, besides, Jerrold Lewis has already made a more sane reply.
Click to expand...


Ah, so you acknowledge that your own reply is not sane?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

calgal said:


> Michael Butterfield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> this is not funny really. The amazing thing is that the coverings do NOT take all responsibility from the man and frankly you guys have just as much responsibility for YOUR reactions as we women do to dress appropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not much to say here, but typical. I have never met a man or female who honestly espouses a true view of modest that would argue against the fact that men have a huge responsibility. Frankly, the world does not need your help in making us stumble. Frankly, from my perspective a good deal of women and I mean Christian women so called love to flaunt it just about as much as the world and they do not mind tell you so by exposing all kinds of body parts that ought to be covered and/or wearing clothing that reveals the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some questions for you:
> What is modest for a man or a woman? Is it wearing certain things or acting a certain way? How are the modest folks to influence the less modest ones? Is there a sanction for the modesty impaired? Serious question.
> 
> Next thought: I attended Calvary Chapel for a while and they tended to go to the opposite extreme. I was somewhat bemused to see a young lady in a bikini lying on a lounge chair outside the sanctuary listening to the sermon. Their logic is that anyone is welcome. I do not agree with them but do not think it appropriate to be the clothing nazi. The immodestly dressed man or woman could be a new Christian and may need a friendly and gentle introduction to dressing and acting like a gentleman or a lady.
> 
> My question to you pastor is this: how can you welcome someone with less than modest dress and gently and lovingly teach them to value themselves more highly and dress appropriately?
Click to expand...


Michael is merely seeking a Pastorate calgal.

This is a "both-and" situation as JBaldwin noted. 

Wisdom demands that we treat these situations according to the issues at hand. The fact of the matter is that modesty is somewhat culturally defined. I'm not giving license to nudity but there are cultures that missionaries have gone into and the first thing they do is cover up the women as if, all along, the women should have intuitively known that they were being immodest and tempting men who were not in the least tempted by their dress.

Even a modest full length dress would be too much even today for some Arabic men unless the entire body (including the eyes) is covered. Even the form of the woman is too much for some. Simply having a full length dress would be inadequate if it didn't completely obscure every feminine feature.

Making hard and fast rules to fit all cultures everywhere is naive and does not comport with the pursuit of wisdom.

The larger principle is the desire to build up the entire body and to consider the frame of our fellow brothers and sisters - their eyes being merely one thing among many that might cause temptation to sin. It's simply silly to make a law that covers every _every_ culture on the planet or women would, indeed, be covered from head to toe and not merely be wearing a head covering but a full body covering. Nevertheless, if women ever found themselves in a culture that did find their form, in any part, alluring, the Law would not demand of them they cover up everything but love of brother and the willingness to restrict one's own liberty for another may be called for.


----------



## Pergamum

I have a lot of questions on modesty and this issue seems to be one of the most tossed around in some circles:

So, is there a double standard for men and women? Men seem to appear more prone to lust than women. Shorts on a man seems no big deal but shorts on a woman can sometimes be a big deal. Does man's responsibility differ from woman's?

What did Jesus strip down to when he washed the disciples feet?

Also, what about same sex bathing and locker rooms? On sports teams, armies, etc is it okay for men or women to adopt lesser standards of modesty (see my post above). I.e. skinny dip to avoid needing to change clothes during a long trek.

Also, does modesty dissolve when it comes to medical situations or teaching? I.e. doctor exams or teaching using graphics of the human body. Jonathan Edwards got into a tussle about a midwifery book didn't he? 

What if a man wants to shop for lingerie with his wife? Can he enter the store to help pick out his preferences or must this be only her domain (I am assuming that lingerie is permissible). 

What about breastfeeding in public? The exposure of the breast is functional and not for aesthetic reasons.


----------



## Kevin

this thread has become so strange...

By Gods grace I was delivered from a legalistic, cult-like, sect of fundamentalists. I must say that I find this entire debate over how xn men & women should try to out cover the moslems, strange to say the least.

The fault is clearly on the one who "looks with lust" in the teaching of our Lord. How this can be transposed to this burka-gospel, I simply do not understand. To me "do not look..." seems so clear. How someone could change that to mean do not wear this, or that seems as great a perversion of the words of the scripture as possible.


----------



## Pergamum

Coram Deo: By the way, I want to mention one more time how much I appreciate your care in all issues. We should never rest with the easy answers and you really do search out these issues.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Kevin said:


> this thread has become so strange...
> 
> By Gods grace I was delivered from a legalistic, cult-like, sect of fundamentalists. I must say that I find this entire debate over how xn men & women should try to out cover the moslems, strange to say the least.
> 
> The fault is clearly on the one who "looks with lust" in the teaching of our Lord. How this can be transposed to this burka-gospel, I simply do not understand. To me "do not look..." seems so clear. How someone could change that to mean do not wear this, or that seems as great a perversion of the words of the scripture as possible.



Kevin,

I don't want to dismiss the concern. There are some parallels with other things where liberty of conscience should rule.

I agree that what has been manifest by some in this thread is akin to a form of legalism that has a parallel to the way some treat alchohol.

The desire to be modest for the sake of another cannot be turned into Talmud as if the Gospel doesn't even control our motivation in that sphere. Those that seek to create a rule book for such things miss the very spirit of Romans 12-16 that governs our reasonable service in response to the Gospel.

As I said previously, we ought to be training one another in what that reasonable service is. I completely agree that men have a responsibility to guard their eyes. Women may also be motivated by a love for a struggling brother to consider what she wears that may cause temptation. In that case, however, the motivation is no longer the "thou shall not" but the end of the law, which is love and concern for the man in your midst who is a fellow heir.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

This is how I feel. I honestly in my heart do not want to cause my brothers in Christ to stumble so I take care in choosing my clothing. But there are some things I am honestly not convicted of, like skirts or dresses the touch the knee, wear 3/4 sleeves, showing my hair, wearing jewelry, putting on make-up, and wearing shoes with heels (not too high though 3" at the most for me). My conscience bears no witness against me when I do these things. And I honestly feel that I can honor the Lord with my attire. 

Now if i were around a brother in Christ who I knew had a hard time dealing with say some fettish with women's calfs or forarms, I would honor his conviction and forfit what I would usually wear to accommodate my weaker brother, just as I would not drink with a brother in Christ who had a past or present drinking problem. 

But the thing is... I don't know every man's struggle, and honestly I couldn't keep up with it and accommodate every single man's lustful problem - one man would have a problem lusting after a woman's calfs, another after her lips.. another after her eyes, another after her hands, and so on and so forth and I'd end up in a berka with the glasses in front of my veil. But, I want to follow the spirit of God's law and so I think to myself what is the ultimate purpose of modesty? Am I trying to flaunt my body in this outfit? Am I purposefully trying to cause men to look at me in a lustful way by drawing attention to the obvious coutours of the female body? When I can answer no, my conscience is clear, and I feel that I have the liberty to buy that piece of clothing and give all praise and thanks and honor and glory to God.  




SemperFideles said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> this thread has become so strange...
> 
> By Gods grace I was delivered from a legalistic, cult-like, sect of fundamentalists. I must say that I find this entire debate over how xn men & women should try to out cover the moslems, strange to say the least.
> 
> The fault is clearly on the one who "looks with lust" in the teaching of our Lord. How this can be transposed to this burka-gospel, I simply do not understand. To me "do not look..." seems so clear. How someone could change that to mean do not wear this, or that seems as great a perversion of the words of the scripture as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin,
> 
> I don't want to dismiss the concern. There are some parallels with other things where liberty of conscience should rule.
> 
> I agree that what has been manifest by some in this thread is akin to a form of legalism that has a parallel to the way some treat alchohol.
> 
> The desire to be modest for the sake of another cannot be turned into Talmud as if the Gospel doesn't even control our motivation in that sphere. Those that seek to create a rule book for such things miss the very spirit of Romans 12-16 that governs our reasonable service in response to the Gospel.
> 
> As I said previously, we ought to be training one another in what that reasonable service is. I completely agree that men have a responsibility to guard their eyes. Women may also be motivated by a love for a struggling brother to consider what she wears that may cause temptation. In that case, however, the motivation is no longer the "thou shall not" but the end of the law, which is love and concern for the man in your midst who is a fellow heir.
Click to expand...


----------



## kvanlaan

Here's a bit of cultural trivia for you: women in 'old' China used to be covered from a high mandarin collar down to just about the ankles in traditional dresses, and to the wrists with their sleeves. However, they had their feet bound (in which the arch of the foot is broken over a stone/simply wrapped over and bound) in order to make their feet tiny and their steps small and dainty. The feet were mostly covered by the dress so it was not so much an issue of allurement there (though the tiny feet were considered attractive as well, but were not showcased quite so publically). Instead, it was the gait of the steps themselves. The short shuffle was what was thought to be erotic (according to a couple of sources I have read; it may have changed with certain dynasties). But this was a cultural institution, in which young girls were forced to take part in order to someday be married. Total covering and modest behavior were enforced 100%. But a simple walk down a hallway could be thus immodest...



> Beta ARs are made from new Gore-Tex® Pro Shell fabric and offer improved protection, breathability, durability and *suppleness*



Could they not have used another word?!?! Especially when talking about specifically modest clothing...


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I just listened to the message and I am in 100% agrement with brother Martin on this one.


----------



## Coram Deo

Wow, What a way to start a morning...  Where do I start...... (and I have not even had my coffee yet)...

First, no one is saying we should add our own rules or write a collection of extra biblical talmudic law. Nor is anyone trying to be a Pharisee, one who adds to the laws of God or one who believes they are justified by keeping laws. As for Sanctification, all I will say is, "Be Holy for I am Holy" saith the Lord. We are called to be Holy and to grow in Holiness everyday. 

Secondly, no one was saying we cover "just" for the stumbling of brothers or to out do the muslim covering. Early in the thread I posted a list of Scripture passages with regard to modesty... I see in Genesis a Tunic that according to some bible scholars came down past the knee and to other bible scholars came down to the ankles... I see the head covered for modesty.. I see the in Isaiah 47:2 that God is using an analogy of modesty which says if the head is uncovered or the leg made bare you are showing your nakedness.. I see a woman or man is not to wear what pertains to the other sex and I see a command to wear modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array, in addition to the inward commands of modesty. So I see body, legs, and head to be covered.

Now I know that some of you do not accept the interpretation of some of these passages but I do and many others do to. But this is far from Adding to Scripture or being a Pharisee and it certainly is not legalistic.. What it boils down to is interpretation of scriptures and not adding to it scripture.. I see a list in scripture and I am not the first person and I am not the last person to see them. ECF, Reformers, Puritans, and Moderns have all seen the same list... We may disagree to the list but try not to judge the motives of those who hold to a stricter list for modesty.... I do it out of Love for God and to Grow Holier everyday... "Fear God, and Keep His Commandments" is the whole duty of man.

And Remember "Be Holy, For I am Holy" 


"Also for Adam and his wife the LORD *God made tunics of skin*, and clothed them." (Genesis 3:21)

"And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. For she [had] said unto the servant, What man [is] this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant [had] said, It [is] my master: therefore *she took a vail, and covered herself.*" (Genesis 24:64,65)

“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God. " (Deuteronomy 22:5)

"‘And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD. The priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. *Then the priest shall stand the woman before the LORD, uncover the woman’s head, *and put the offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse." (Numbers 5:16-18)

“The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the *keepers of the walls took away my veil from me.*” (Song of Solomon 5:7)

"Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:" (Isaiah 3:16)

“Take the millstones, and grind meal: *uncover thy veil, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh*, pass over the rivers. *Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen.*” (Isaiah 47:2-3)

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in *modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;* But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works." (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart" (1 Peter 3:3-4)

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Coram Deo

Pergy, I will try to briefly answer your questions...




Pergamum said:


> I have a lot of questions on modesty and this issue seems to be one of the most tossed around in some circles:
> 
> So, is there a double standard for men and women? Men seem to appear more prone to lust than women. Shorts on a man seems no big deal but shorts on a woman can sometimes be a big deal. Does man's responsibility differ from woman's?



No doubt Standard... I think I proved that about me already in the thread...



Pergamum said:


> What did Jesus strip down to when he washed the disciples feet?



Not sure, I would have to look this up.. Most likely he just removed part of his outer garment which he was still covered by a inner garment of the times...



Pergamum said:


> Also, what about same sex bathing and locker rooms? On sports teams, armies, etc is it okay for men or women to adopt lesser standards of modesty (see my post above). I.e. skinny dip to avoid needing to change clothes during a long trek.



Not sure about same sex situations but personally I will not use and have abstained from using public locker rooms because of modesty.. Additionally I will not use stand up wall unit in restrooms and always go to the closed door stalls for bodily functions... 



Pergamum said:


> Also, does modesty dissolve when it comes to medical situations or teaching? I.e. doctor exams or teaching using graphics of the human body. Jonathan Edwards got into a tussle about a midwifery book didn't he?



My wife will not see any doctor unless the doctor is female for examinations or checkups.. She has a special midwife for gyn functions who is female. All my doctors have always been male...



Pergamum said:


> What if a man wants to shop for lingerie with his wife? Can he enter the store to help pick out his preferences or must this be only her domain (I am assuming that lingerie is permissible).



HAHA, Shop On line for those things.. But if a man is brave enough to venture into the lingerie department which I have never been able to do (In Todays Cultural Climate, man would get to many stirs by people thinking the wrong think about the man) then more power to him..... 



Pergamum said:


> What about breastfeeding in public? The exposure of the breast is functional and not for aesthetic reasons.



My wife has always has found a private place to breastfeed and covers with a blanket as does all the other woman I have seen around me who breastfeed their babies... You do not need to reveal the body part to breastfeed...

Hope this helps...


----------



## ServantofGod

> Also, what about same sex bathing and locker rooms? On sports teams, armies, etc is it okay for men or women to adopt lesser standards of modesty (see my post above). I.e. skinny dip to avoid needing to change clothes during a long trek.



"4 Just as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the shore; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 Jesus said to them, “Children, do you have any fish?” They answered him, “No.” 6 He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in, because of the quantity of fish. 7 That disciple whom Jesus loved therefore said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When *Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was stripped for work*, and threw himself into the sea." John 21:4-7

Obviously, men back in the day were undressed around each other to work.

David was "immodest" when he was dancing because of the return of the ark. Whether he was in the right or the wrong is for another time and place, but he was never condemned by God.

When you live in a college dorm, you are always around, um, undressed guys. It just happens. Showers are together, rooms are small and lack privacy from roommates...



> My wife will not see any doctor unless the doctor is female for examinations or checkups.. She has a special midwife for gyn functions who is female. All my doctors have always been male...



My wife(if and when I get married) will only see female doctors, ect., also.



> What if a man wants to shop for lingerie with his wife? Can he enter the store to help pick out his preferences or must this be only her domain (I am assuming that lingerie is permissible).



If it is permissible: Who in the heck wants that stuff? When you get married, you can finally enjoy your wife naked. No need to buy more clothes...


----------



## Coram Deo

ServantofGod,

Notice that it says OUTER garment.. There were inner garments of the day...



ServantofGod said:


> When *Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was stripped for work*, and threw himself into the sea."






ServantofGod said:


> If it is permissible: Who in the heck wants that stuff? When you get married, you can finally enjoy your wife naked. No need to buy more clothes...



Haha, I concur.......


----------



## Grymir

Corem Deo - Loved your swimwear. It's nice to see that spandex is making a comeback. (Ah, The days when I was in a hair band!)

To all. We all know what modesty is. Nobody can deny that the Bible calls for it. Anybody who tries to say it's ok for women to dress like sluts is wrong. plain wrong. Just go to the mall and look around. Teens dress very immodest. Parent's that give it their blessing and buy the clothes for them are corrupting their children. Even on Nickelodeon Channel the kids are dressed like whores.

Anybody who says women can wear whatever they want to, well, we can see through the lines. Very obviously too!


----------



## Stephen

Daniel Ritchie said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that should be obvious. Do you know immodesty when you see it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! But who is _you_. Immodesty is actually somewhat cultural so it isn't a question that is immaterial. There are certain cultures where it does not tempt men to see women clad in a manner that would be very tempting to Western males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though in my culture, Christian women should dress in a way that does not cause men (in my culture) to lust.
Click to expand...



Daniel, you are absolutely right. The way women dress today is far different than just a few years ago. I believe that the downward spiral of our western culture has affected dress in both men and women. If a woman is dressed where breasts are exposed and you can see her behind I think that would certainly be classified as immodest. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out. A Christian woman should look somewhat different from the average girl on the street that resembles a harlot more than a woman. The way a woman dresses says alot about her character. The thing that attracted me to my wife the first time I met her was the way she dressed. She was not unkept as some fundamentalists think a woman should look, but she dressed like a lady. I have always found immodest and sloppy dressed women a real turn off.


----------



## BJClark

Coram Deo;




> HAHA, Shop On line for those things.. But if a man is brave enough to venture into the lingerie department which I have never been able to do (In Todays Cultural Climate, man would get to many stirs by people thinking the wrong think about the man) then more power to him...



I'm curious why do you think men 'get many stirs by people if they go into such a store'? Most people don't think anything negative of a man going into such a store shopping with his wife..or even alone for that matter.

When I see men shopping with their wives in such stores I actually praise God that these women are still seeking to please their husbands in such a way, especially given the divorce rate today. 

I guess if I seen men in such stores alone, I could assume the worst of them, and think they are somehow there for vile purposes, but I don't.


----------



## Stephen

SemperFideles said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Butterfield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not much to say here, but typical. I have never met a man or female who honestly espouses a true view of modest that would argue against the fact that men have a huge responsibility. Frankly, the world does not need your help in making us stumble. Frankly, from my perspective a good deal of women and I mean Christian women so called love to flaunt it just about as much as the world and they do not mind tell you so by exposing all kinds of body parts that ought to be covered and/or wearing clothing that reveals the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> Some questions for you:
> What is modest for a man or a woman? Is it wearing certain things or acting a certain way? How are the modest folks to influence the less modest ones? Is there a sanction for the modesty impaired? Serious question.
> 
> Next thought: I attended Calvary Chapel for a while and they tended to go to the opposite extreme. I was somewhat bemused to see a young lady in a bikini lying on a lounge chair outside the sanctuary listening to the sermon. Their logic is that anyone is welcome. I do not agree with them but do not think it appropriate to be the clothing nazi. The immodestly dressed man or woman could be a new Christian and may need a friendly and gentle introduction to dressing and acting like a gentleman or a lady.
> 
> My question to you pastor is this: how can you welcome someone with less than modest dress and gently and lovingly teach them to value themselves more highly and dress appropriately?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michael is merely seeking a Pastorate calgal.
> 
> This is a "both-and" situation as JBaldwin noted.
> 
> Wisdom demands that we treat these situations according to the issues at hand. The fact of the matter is that modesty is somewhat culturally defined. I'm not giving license to nudity but there are cultures that missionaries have gone into and the first thing they do is cover up the women as if, all along, the women should have intuitively known that they were being immodest and tempting men who were not in the least tempted by their dress.
> 
> Even a modest full length dress would be too much even today for some Arabic men unless the entire body (including the eyes) is covered. Even the form of the woman is too much for some. Simply having a full length dress would be inadequate if it didn't completely obscure every feminine feature.
> 
> Making hard and fast rules to fit all cultures everywhere is naive and does not comport with the pursuit of wisdom.
> 
> The larger principle is the desire to build up the entire body and to consider the frame of our fellow brothers and sisters - their eyes being merely one thing among many that might cause temptation to sin. It's simply silly to make a law that covers every _every_ culture on the planet or women would, indeed, be covered from head to toe and not merely be wearing a head covering but a full body covering. Nevertheless, if women ever found themselves in a culture that did find their form, in any part, alluring, the Law would not demand of them they cover up everything but love of brother and the willingness to restrict one's own liberty for another may be called for.
Click to expand...


Thanks, brother. I was looking for someone who would give us permission to start a Christian nudist club. I think we should get back to nature


----------



## JBaldwin

Grymir said:


> Corem Deo - Loved the swimwear. It's nice to see that spandex is making a comeback. (Ah, The days when I was in a hair band!)
> 
> To all. We all know what modesty is. Nobody can deny that the Bible calls for it. Anybody who tries to say it's ok for women to dress like sluts is wrong. plain wrong. Just go to the mall and look around. Teens dress very immodest. Parent's that give it their blessing and buy the clothes for them are corrupting their children. Even on Nickelodeon Channel the kids are dressed like whores.
> 
> Anybody who says women can wear whatever they want to, well, we can see through the lines. Very obviously too!



To be honest, I didn't get that from anyone on this thread. What I have seen is a "standards" vs. "heart attitude" discussion. 

As it has already been said many times, modest dress is important (from both men and women), but heart attitude is just as important, and I would say THE most important. If our hearts are in the right place, our standards will fall in line. To be honest, I lived as a legalistic pharisee for many years. Frankly, my dress today is not a whole lot different than it was back then. I still carefully cover up. The difference? I don't worry about my dress, I worry about my attitude before the Lord. I make my decisions about clothing based on my love for the Lord and what pleases Him. Oddly enough, I end up making about the same choices as I did when I only cared what the rules were.


----------



## Coram Deo

BJclark,

I was referring to Men in the lingerie department alone... I have seen men by themselves in the department.. Of course I did not think badly about them but I show other people snickering and whispering near by "Oh, he must like ___________" You can fill in the blanks.... So it does happen because of todays cultural climate... Personally I find that online shopping for the wife is better and she can be there to help pick out... But ServantofGod had a good point too... "What is the point in more clothing once married" 




BJClark said:


> Coram Deo;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHA, Shop On line for those things.. But if a man is brave enough to venture into the lingerie department which I have never been able to do (In Todays Cultural Climate, man would get to many stirs by people thinking the wrong think about the man) then more power to him...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious why do you think men 'get many stirs by people if they go into such a store'? Most people don't think anything negative of a man going into such a store shopping with his wife..or even alone for that matter.
> 
> When I see men shopping with their wives in such stores I actually praise God that these women are still seeking to please their husbands in such a way, especially given the divorce rate today.
> 
> I guess if I seen men in such stores alone, I could assume the worst of them, and think they are somehow there for vile purposes, but I don't.
Click to expand...


----------



## Coram Deo

Jbaldwin,

Over the years, I have seen the reverse... Where woman or man are only concerned for the heart attitude and it never ever affects the outward person... I Agree both are important and both are to be held in balance but I always see the one end and not much the other end or balanced. Many times are standards will not fall in line... Both must be held up diligently

.. 



JBaldwin said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corem Deo - Loved the swimwear. It's nice to see that spandex is making a comeback. (Ah, The days when I was in a hair band!)
> 
> To all. We all know what modesty is. Nobody can deny that the Bible calls for it. Anybody who tries to say it's ok for women to dress like sluts is wrong. plain wrong. Just go to the mall and look around. Teens dress very immodest. Parent's that give it their blessing and buy the clothes for them are corrupting their children. Even on Nickelodeon Channel the kids are dressed like whores.
> 
> Anybody who says women can wear whatever they want to, well, we can see through the lines. Very obviously too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, I didn't get that from anyone on this thread. What I have seen is a "standards" vs. "heart attitude" discussion.
> 
> As it has already been said many times, modest dress is important (from both men and women), but heart attitude is just as important, and I would say THE most important. If our hearts are in the right place, our standards will fall in line. To be honest, I lived as a legalistic pharisee for many years. Frankly, my dress today is not a whole lot different than it was back then. I still carefully cover up. The difference? I don't worry about my dress, I worry about my attitude before the Lord. I make my decisions about clothing based on my love for the Lord and what pleases Him. Oddly enough, I end up making about the same choices as I did when I only cared what the rules were.
Click to expand...


----------



## Coram Deo

Well, I am taking a short break from this thread... I am going to try to enjoy some of the outdoors... I will try to catch back up tonight if there is not another 3 or 4 pages to read through....


----------



## JBaldwin

Coram Deo said:


> Jbaldwin,
> 
> Over the years, I have seen the reverse... Where woman or man are only concerned for the heart attitude and it never ever affects the outward person... I Agree both are important and both are to be held in balance but I always see the one end and not much the other end or balanced. Many times are standards will not fall in line... Both must be held up diligently
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corem Deo - Loved the swimwear. It's nice to see that spandex is making a comeback. (Ah, The days when I was in a hair band!)
> 
> To all. We all know what modesty is. Nobody can deny that the Bible calls for it. Anybody who tries to say it's ok for women to dress like sluts is wrong. plain wrong. Just go to the mall and look around. Teens dress very immodest. Parent's that give it their blessing and buy the clothes for them are corrupting their children. Even on Nickelodeon Channel the kids are dressed like whores.
> 
> Anybody who says women can wear whatever they want to, well, we can see through the lines. Very obviously too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, I didn't get that from anyone on this thread. What I have seen is a "standards" vs. "heart attitude" discussion.
> 
> As it has already been said many times, modest dress is important (from both men and women), but heart attitude is just as important, and I would say THE most important. If our hearts are in the right place, our standards will fall in line. To be honest, I lived as a legalistic pharisee for many years. Frankly, my dress today is not a whole lot different than it was back then. I still carefully cover up. The difference? I don't worry about my dress, I worry about my attitude before the Lord. I make my decisions about clothing based on my love for the Lord and what pleases Him. Oddly enough, I end up making about the same choices as I did when I only cared what the rules were.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


What I am saying is that if people are genuinely concerned about their hearts before the Lord, and they have His Spirit living in them, they WILL do what is right. 

The longer I walk with the Lord, the more I realize that there are many "tares" in the church. Our job is not to flush them out, but to walk before the Lord as holy and pray for them. 

One of the most painful (and also freeing) areas of sanctification in my life has been in the area of judging others and what they do. It is so easy to point fingers, to criticize the others around us, to try to "sanctify" our neighbors, to look at the moat in our brother's eye and all the while fail to see the beam in our own. The fact is, we have to look at our own relationship before the Lord and compare OUR lives to His. If we do that, we see our wretched sinfulness, and the sins of others somehow seem minor in comparision to our own.


----------



## Stephen

Coram Deo said:


> Here is what I would wear... It is lightweight and does not hold water.
> 
> Beta ARs are made from new Gore-Tex® Pro Shell fabric and offer improved protection, breathability, durability and suppleness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJClark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please provide a link for men's modest swimwear as well?? I'd like to see what it looks like..
> 
> The only things I could find are with lycra wetsuits which is pretty much skin tight on men, or jeans and a t-shirt and well, men with wet t-shirts clinging to their muscle bound bodies can cause women to lust as well...
Click to expand...


When I lived in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida I liked to go occassionaly to the beach to read and relax. I would always wear modest swim shorts and a short sleeve tee-shirt. I burn easily so I do not like to be exposed to the sun, but I was usually the most modestly dressed person at the beach. Ft. Lauderdale beach had a dress code they enforced until about ten years ago, and now people dress with very little. The men wear less than some women. How times have changed.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

*Just an example of what I typically wear..*

I hope this doesn't offend anyone (and if it does, moderators don't hesitate to delete this post) But i just wanted to give an exmample of the types of skirts/dresses I would pick out among all the "other" choices to wear.


----------



## BJClark

Coram Deo;




> Of course I did not think badly about them but I show other people snickering and whispering near by "Oh, he must like ___________" You can fill in the blanks.... So it does happen because of todays cultural climate... Personally I find that online shopping for the wife is better and she can be there to help pick out... But ServantofGod had a good point too... "What is the point in more clothing once married"




In the instance mentioned above, I honestly don't think it's "because of today's culture" I believe it was more because of their own hearts. You said yourself, "I did not think badly about them" yet you live within the same culture climate as those who did snicker. 

I don't shop online but I have looked at various sites to see what's out there..
and many of the websites I have personally looked at are filled with models clad in these sexy outfits, so how can one keep their thoughts pure in such cases, even with their wives sitting next to them? 

Especially given what you've been saying that many struggle with lust even looking at a womans hair or legs, why would one set themselves up to lust over such images within the confines of their own homes looking with and for their wives? How could one justify having the internet coming into their homes given the many advertisements of barely clad women or women with their hair showing if they know they struggle with this?


----------



## BertMulder

From a thoroughly secular (Canadian) magazine:

Zinio | Digital Magazines


----------



## ServantofGod

Coram Deo said:


> ServantofGod,
> 
> *Notice that it says OUTER garment.. There were inner garments of the day...*
> 
> 
> 
> ServantofGod said:
> 
> 
> 
> When *Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was stripped for work*, and threw himself into the sea."
Click to expand...


This is true. But remember that we aren't talking predominantly about nudity. You had mentioned before about not wearing shorts, or using public restrooms, shall we say, publicly?



> Not sure about same sex situations but personally I will not use and have abstained from using public locker rooms because of modesty.. Additionally I will not use stand up wall unit in restrooms and always go to the closed door stalls to answer nature's call[reworded]...



But then there is the case of Noah and his son...


----------



## BJClark

BertMulder;



I was reading an article in a magazine the other day while at the hospital, and it was pretty much the same type thing as the Candian article; But it also spoke of kids getting cell phones when they are in kindergarden, and having internet, and cable TV in their bedrooms without parental supervision, and how parents allow their kids to dress in such clothes that by the time they hit their teenage years they have "Experienced most everything" and are now looking for a new thrill to fill the void, so some are asking for their parents permission to get married at 15 and 16 years of age for that new thrill...


----------



## BertMulder

Esteemed Bobbi, 

As was my post mostly off-topic.

It is indeed terrible to see how sin begets sin...

And the great responsibility we have as parents...


----------



## Pergamum

Simply Nicki: Looks fairly classy.



I have a friend who ministers in Africa. Women often go largely topless among some tribes. His wife, however, was upbraided for her immodesty and dressing like a floozy. Her crime? She wore shorts whereas all good women covered their thighs.

This does illustrate that we see things through our cultural glasses. There are indeed universal standards but we often have a hard time acknowledging how much culture does determine what is sin and what is permissible.



Coram Deo: When shopping for lingerie it is less of a danger to go there in person then to google any lingerie related terms. Beware the NET!


----------



## Michael Butterfield

Stephen said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some questions for you:
> What is modest for a man or a woman? Is it wearing certain things or acting a certain way? How are the modest folks to influence the less modest ones? Is there a sanction for the modesty impaired? Serious question.
> 
> Next thought: I attended Calvary Chapel for a while and they tended to go to the opposite extreme. I was somewhat bemused to see a young lady in a bikini lying on a lounge chair outside the sanctuary listening to the sermon. Their logic is that anyone is welcome. I do not agree with them but do not think it appropriate to be the clothing nazi. The immodestly dressed man or woman could be a new Christian and may need a friendly and gentle introduction to dressing and acting like a gentleman or a lady.
> 
> My question to you pastor is this: how can you welcome someone with less than modest dress and gently and lovingly teach them to value themselves more highly and dress appropriately?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael is merely seeking a Pastorate calgal.
> 
> This is a "both-and" situation as JBaldwin noted.
> 
> Wisdom demands that we treat these situations according to the issues at hand. The fact of the matter is that modesty is somewhat culturally defined. I'm not giving license to nudity but there are cultures that missionaries have gone into and the first thing they do is cover up the women as if, all along, the women should have intuitively known that they were being immodest and tempting men who were not in the least tempted by their dress.
> 
> Even a modest full length dress would be too much even today for some Arabic men unless the entire body (including the eyes) is covered. Even the form of the woman is too much for some. Simply having a full length dress would be inadequate if it didn't completely obscure every feminine feature.
> 
> Making hard and fast rules to fit all cultures everywhere is naive and does not comport with the pursuit of wisdom.
> 
> The larger principle is the desire to build up the entire body and to consider the frame of our fellow brothers and sisters - their eyes being merely one thing among many that might cause temptation to sin. It's simply silly to make a law that covers every _every_ culture on the planet or women would, indeed, be covered from head to toe and not merely be wearing a head covering but a full body covering. Nevertheless, if women ever found themselves in a culture that did find their form, in any part, alluring, the Law would not demand of them they cover up everything but love of brother and the willingness to restrict one's own liberty for another may be called for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, brother. I was looking for someone who would give us permission to start a Christian nudist club. I think we should get back to nature
Click to expand...


Yes, I vote for that.


----------



## Coram Deo

I am trying to carefully guard my eyes here... I hope you won't think me facetious but I do find those legs very sexy... I am not sure of what man would not drool over those legs and tell they are very sexy and lustful... I could go into further detail but I would be afraid of mentally lusting...





Simply_Nikki said:


> I hope this doesn't offend anyone (and if it does, moderators don't hesitate to delete this post) But i just wanted to give an exmample of the types of skirts/dresses I would pick out among all the "other" choices to wear.


----------



## Coram Deo

Pergy and BJclark,

I should have been more specific.. I agree totally with you that internet websites can be problematic and be worse then going to the store.. Years ago I knew of a website that sold lingerie without models or fake dummies... Just pictures of the clothing laid out on a back color..... I tried to find that website today and was not successful... But I have heard of others like it.... But again what ServantofGod said, Who needs more cloths when married. 

Pergy,

My personal convictions are that culture plays no role in the modesty department and find it solely moral. Of course as you have known me over the years now I don't believe much into cultural aspects when it comes to scriptures.... 






Pergamum said:


> Coram Deo: When shopping for lingerie it is less of a danger to go there in person then to google any lingerie related terms. Beware the NET!


----------



## Michael Butterfield

calgal said:


> Michael Butterfield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> Some questions for you:
> What is modest for a man or a woman? Is it wearing certain things or acting a certain way? How are the modest folks to influence the less modest ones? Is there a sanction for the modesty impaired? Serious question.
> 
> Next thought: I attended Calvary Chapel for a while and they tended to go to the opposite extreme. I was somewhat bemused to see a young lady in a bikini lying on a lounge chair outside the sanctuary listening to the sermon. Their logic is that anyone is welcome. I do not agree with them but do not think it appropriate to be the clothing nazi. The immodestly dressed man or woman could be a new Christian and may need a friendly and gentle introduction to dressing and acting like a gentleman or a lady.
> 
> My question to you pastor is this: how can you welcome someone with less than modest dress and gently and lovingly teach them to value themselves more highly and dress appropriately?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, let me dissuade of the idea that I am a pastor. And, if I ever become one, much to the dismay of some I can also assure you that I am not infallible.
> 
> Second, how I would go about welcoming someone with less than modest dress and gently and lovingly teach them to value themselves more highly and dress appropriately would be done in the same way any one else that I know who espouses a strong view on modesty. My acceptance of them is not based upon their way of dressing. They have much more value as a Christian and a garden variety pagan, which ever they may be, than in the way they dress. So, I would never accept or not accept a person based on the way they are dressed. It is not a ground for so doing. Then I would in a way that might take years do as you indicate gently and lovingly teach them. I am a little iffy about what you mean by value themselves more highly, but that aside, it would be over time. You think I always held this view? I learned it, so can others.
> 
> As for your other questions, let me say wearing certain things and acting a certain way are a large element constituting modesty. I will be the first to say/admit/recognize that modest is first and foremost a heart issue for men and women. Nevertheless, I will put it this way. I used to be on the campus of a certain very well known Christian University (which will remain anonymous) on occasion with the standing rule, a rule stringently enforced, that girls had to wear long dresses. Now these dresses were, I think again by rule, were virtually down to the floor. Many, however, who wore these dress were not modest women. Why? Because they knew the art of sensuality. They oozed with sensuality in the way they wore their hair, the way they walked, the way they wore the slightest makeup, and the places in which their dresses fit most snugly. So, did the clothes alone make them modest. No. So, it is wearing and acting, but even more importantly it is the heart.
> 
> As for what is modest for men, I think several post here have documented that issue well. For women in our culture, it is a bit more of a challenge so I offer some suggestions that will be of benefit from my perspective.
> 
> They are seen in what is commonly called the “Modesty Test”. A simple Goggle search will find you plenty of them. However, in all honestly, I really am not that convinced that Christian women are prepared to subject themselves to it. The test itself will, therefore, be easy for most to dismiss, especially when it infringes upon the way they want to dress. (I guess I better make a disclaimer here: This post is not meant to be indicating you personally or any other person who may think so, since I have never met you or anyone else that might think this post is directed at them personally)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A shirt that is so low that the breasts can be seen?
> A tight or form-fitting shirt or dress?
> A tank top or shirt that reveals a bra, or the place a bra would normally be if you were wearing one? (even the shoulder area)
> A shirt that has writing or a logo across the chest and screams "look here!"?
> Tight fitting pants that draw attention to your body?
> Pants that are so low (or a shirt that is so high) that it shows your mid-drift or underwear?
> Low-rise underwear so that your underwear aren't showing with your low-rise jeans? (don't get shorter underwear, get higher pants instead!)
> A skirt that is high above the knees or reveals much of your legs?
> A skirt or dress that has a large slit pointing like an arrow up the back or front, screaming "look up!"?
> Pants or a skirt with a logo or writing across the buttocks?
> Any other clothing item that particularly draws attention to your chest, buttocks or legs, or anything that draws attention to your body in any way? "Is it cold in here?" OK, girls...hate to bring this one up but when we get cold or nervous sometimes we can "get nippy"...if you catch my drift. When this happens, it is visible to others IF our bras are not thick enough. Keep in mind that when you're wearing thinner shirts, wear a thicker bra to avoid this problem.
> If you answered yes to any of these questions, please choose something else to wear, for the sake of your Christian brothers, their wives, and their children.
> Also, when you try on clothing, remember to sit and stand in different positions to test how modest the clothing really is, in all circumstances.
> See these references for further study:
> Women's Ministry: Revive Our Hearts with Nancy Leigh DeMoss-- Seeking Biblical Womanhood
> girl talk
> Modesty Survey :: Main
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## bookslover

There are only three men who should ever see a woman naked: her husband, her doctor and, when the time comes, her undertaker.


----------



## bookslover

Coram Deo said:


> Additionally I will not use stand up wall unit in restrooms and always go to the closed door stalls for bodily functions...



Your biblical convictions aside, you must have some serious body issues. This is a pretty bizarre statement, if you don't mind my saying so.


----------



## Grymir

Love the Modesty Test!

Just got back from Wally World. Lots of young women under 16. Especially after this thread! I had to restrain from walking up and saying something to the moms. Very similar to the cover on the magazine above. Sheesh.

Parenting, the lost art.

There were also modestly dressed women there too! I had to also reframe from asking which church they went to. Big difference.


----------



## Coram Deo

How So?

I find it immodest to use the wall units that have no stalls around them... I know many other man who have the same convictions.. I do not see why this is so _"bizarre"_....



bookslover said:


> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally I will not use stand up wall unit in restrooms and always go to the closed door stalls for bodily functions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your biblical convictions aside, you must have some serious body issues. This is a pretty bizarre statement, if you don't mind my saying so.
Click to expand...


----------



## kvanlaan

> From a thoroughly secular (Canadian) magazine:
> 
> Zinio | Digital Magazines



Bert, when Macleans makes a statement like this, things have gone WAY too far already.



> Love the Modesty Test!
> 
> Just got back from Wally World. Lots of young women under 16. Especially after this thread! I had to restrain from walking up and saying something to the moms. Very similar to the cover on the magazine above. Sheesh.
> 
> *Parenting, the lost art.*
> 
> There were also modestly dressed women there too! I had to also reframe from asking which church they went to. Big difference.



I find that many people consider themselves parents because they _have_ kids - no further involvement required. It's like saying I'm a concert pianist by virtue of merely purchasing a grand piano. Sad.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

kvanlaan said:


> It's like saying I'm a concert pianist by virtue of merely purchasing a grand piano. Sad.



A little ....

You mean I can't tell folks I'm a theologian because I own Calvin's Institutes?! 

Now,






Your statement about "parents" is true. Sad, but true.


----------



## bookslover

Coram Deo said:


> How So?
> 
> I find it immodest to use the wall units that have no stalls around them... I know many other man who have the same convictions.. I do not see why this is so _"bizarre"_....
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally I will not use stand up wall unit in restrooms and always go to the closed door stalls for bodily functions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your biblical convictions aside, you must have some serious body issues. This is a pretty bizarre statement, if you don't mind my saying so.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Urinals are probably the most common porcelein products on the planet. They're not unusual, and there's nothing unusual about using them (unless Larry "Wide Stance" Craig is around!). They're perfectly acceptable. That's just the way it is in public restrooms.

At Dodger Stadium (and probably most other major-league ballparks, I imagine), they don't even bother with urinals. They just have long trench-like thingees the men use for answering nature's call...


----------



## Coram Deo

I don't find them perfectly acceptable and will not use them....

And about major-league ballparks, remind never to go to them.. That is totally disgusting..... Glad I have never gone to a ballpark.....




bookslover said:


> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How So?
> 
> I find it immodest to use the wall units that have no stalls around them... I know many other man who have the same convictions.. I do not see why this is so _"bizarre"_....
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your biblical convictions aside, you must have some serious body issues. This is a pretty bizarre statement, if you don't mind my saying so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Urinals are probably the most common porcelein products on the planet. They're not unusual, and there's nothing unusual about using them (unless Larry "Wide Stance" Craig is around!). They're perfectly acceptable. That's just the way it is in public restrooms.
> 
> At Dodger Stadium (and probably most other major-league ballparks, I imagine), they don't even bother with urinals. They just have long trench-like thingees the men use for answering nature's call...
Click to expand...


----------



## Amazing Grace

Coram Deo said:


> How So?
> 
> I find it immodest to use the wall units that have no stalls around them... I know many other man who have the same convictions.. I do not see why this is so _"bizarre"_....
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally I will not use stand up wall unit in restrooms and always go to the closed door stalls for bodily functions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your biblical convictions aside, you must have some serious body issues. This is a pretty bizarre statement, if you don't mind my saying so.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Michael, I think you are just starting to make this stuff up to ruffle my feathers.


----------



## Coram Deo

Amazing Grace,

I am not making any of this up... My wife does concur on this with me... She was shocked that wall units even existed and was glad I did not use them....




Amazing Grace said:


> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How So?
> 
> I find it immodest to use the wall units that have no stalls around them... I know many other man who have the same convictions.. I do not see why this is so _"bizarre"_....
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your biblical convictions aside, you must have some serious body issues. This is a pretty bizarre statement, if you don't mind my saying so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michael, I think you are just starting to make this stuff up to ruffle my feathers.
Click to expand...


----------



## Coram Deo

By and By, Can we please leave the "Watering Closet" topic and get back to clothing... I do not like talking about such bodily functions...


----------



## BJClark

Coram Deo;

Headcoverings by She Maketh Herself Coverings

Looking at this site, most of the headcoverings still show the hair, which you also say should be covered..so your wife even here would have very few coverings to choose from.


----------



## Pergamum

Coram Deo:

Though I would love for you to see more of what role culture plays, I do agree with you that I prefer closed-box toilets instead of urinals. It is not a conviction but a strong preference.

In some parts of the world, people wonder if a different colored or foreign person is circumcised....and sometimes they peek. This gets old REAL quick.

Also, over here they circumcise boys at age 8-12 (and girls at birth). My son likes to go nude sometimes and play in water on the porch. The neighbor kids all play mude too sometimes. ..but we realized everyone was watching our 2 year old son. Why? It finally clicked, he was already circumsized and they were fascinated and disgusted and some of them thought of us as child abusers (cut your baby like that...you are horrible....you must wait until 8-12).... To circumsize a baby is cruel, but to circumsize a 10 year old and dress them up at the party afterward to greet guests all day is normal.



When it comes to modesty, many women in the Bible wore ear rings and even nose rings. Is this permissible to you? Or is any body decoration at all permissible? Fancy hairdos? Foundation? A spot of rouge to cover a blemish. Could surgery be done to fix a hairlip if insurance paid for it for your wife if you married a woman that had a cleft palate? 

Are you against anything that artificially beautifies as a principle or merely against a few items that are in that category of things that enhance beauty artifically?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Incidentally, just another interesting cultural note about what is "scandalous", the Middle Eastern mind considers it "immodest" for men to bare their legs. "Girding oneself up" was appropriate only for battle but, otherwise, was completely undignified. 

The running of the Father, incidentally, is one of the elements of the Parable of the Prodigal Son that would have shocked the hearers.

There's a reason why we don't find any serious scholarship weighing in on a "hard and fast" exegetical _rule_ regarding what the Bible prescribes as a dress code for men and women as a didactic rule. There are clearly some cases where euphemisms are being applied inappropriatley. I've alluded to this implicitly but this is rather like any other opportunity that a man or woman has to sin in a particular area. Our hearts are idol factories but the solution to the "production line" is not found in an extended rule book of "thou shall nots". 

The list above may be appropriate in certain circumstances but that list is hardly the end of wisdom in the matter. All that is needed is to change a few circumstances and a similar list can be produced forbidding dancing, drinking, smoking tobacco or a host of other things that have the appearance of godliness. It's not that they don't have an element of truth in them (hence they have the appearance of really aiming toward what God has for the end of the thing) but because they don't pursue it as wisdom they miss the aim of the whole thing completely. They not only fall short of the goal but they loudly proclaim their goal is the true aim of Biblical wisdom on that particular subject and then seek to bind men's consciences to it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Blueridge Baptist said:


> I just listened to the message and I am in 100% agrement with brother Martin on this one.



Because this thing has gone on for so long, I broke down and listened to it myself. I agree with him as well. In fact, his argument is precisely what I've been arguing here regarding Gospel motivation.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SemperFideles said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the message and I am in 100% agrement with brother Martin on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because this thing has gone on for so long, I broke down and listened to it myself. I agree with him as well. In fact, his argument is precisely what I've been arguing here regarding Gospel motivation.
Click to expand...


Listened to the message a couple of nights ago myself; Al Martin really instructs with a Pastor's heart. It would be so difficult to preach such a message wisely. I really liked his quotes from Mrs. Mohler.


----------



## Hippo

It is an awful thought that a modestly dressed woman could be berated by a man for causing him to lust, talk about mote and beam.

While Women should dress modestly I have great sympathy with the posts here from women pointing out what a burden men often put on them. Surely our first reaction should not be to blame a women for having nice ankles but to mortify the sin in my own life that causes us to lust.

I also think that it is possible to recognise the beauty of a women in a pure way, we have got to be careful not to despise one of the gifts from God just because of our sinful nature.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

Oh yeah I was wondering about that.. can a man admire the beauty of a woman's physical attractiveness without it being lustful? And likewise can a woman dress herself in an attractive way without tempting men to sin or being immodest?

Or is the presentation of outward beauty always sinful?


----------



## Pergamum

I have wondered about the Greek statues we see in museums. They seem to portray the human form to show its grace. The intent is not to incite lust but to show the symmetry and form of humans. I have never thought of those things as evil.

Also, what about personal training? Could a man help weight train a woman and could he complicate her on her body as she improved it or are all such things sinful - even if such a compliment was of a "way to go" sort, "you've reduced your waist and your shoulders are more toned now..good job."


----------



## Grymir

Pergamum said:


> I have wondered about the Greek statues we see in museums. They seem to portray the human form to show its grace. The intent is not to incite lust but to show the symmetry and form of humans. I have never thought of those things as evil.
> 
> Also, what about personal training? Could a man help weight train a woman and could he complicate her on her body as she improved it or are all such things sinful - even if such a compliment was of a "way to go" sort, "you've reduced your waist and your shoulders are more toned now..good job."




I don't know Pergamum, To complicate her on her body sounds like something my wife and I would do. 


TO ALL - Y'all are pathetic. Nit picking this to death. You know what modest dress is. Usually when people do not agree with modest dress, or try to haggle over the fine points of modest dress, they have ulterior motives, like their wifes don't agree, they like looking, or a host of other reasons. But I also know the ones on this thread, and how you just love to stir things up. (I won't mention any names Pergamum). Modest dress can take both Modern and Older forms. Personally, I like the older forms. When you see such a LADY, you can't help but think "Now there goes a religious woman who follows the Lord!" When I see most attempts at modest dress done by people who don't agree, I can read the "I'm a Liberal" from across the room.


----------



## Ivan

I may not state it the way you have, Timothy, but I agree with you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Simply_Nikki said:


> Oh yeah I was wondering about that.. can a man admire the beauty of a woman's physical attractiveness without it being lustful? And likewise can a woman dress herself in an attractive way without tempting men to sin or being immodest?
> 
> Or is the presentation of outward beauty always sinful?



Maybe it's because I'm getting older and no longer am perceived as having an agenda when I do so but I have no problem telling a man that he has a beautiful wife or telling a lady that she looks really pretty today as a sincere compliment. Now obviously that has bounds.

There are two prime issues with modesty:

1. Not desiring to be sexually alluring and distracting a person with things that might tempt.
2. Not dressing to be ostentatious.

Honestly, in the second category are women that dress up with showy outfits or hats. Either way the person is dressing to draw attention to themselves. I believe our dress should be such a thing that someone does not notice what we're wearing. OUr immediate thought isn't about the outfit or "parts" accentuated by it.

Note, I didn't mention the gender of the party here for both could be guilty of this.

That all said, a woman that is modest has a certain feminine excellence about her that, I believe, can be safely complimented in the same way you would compliment a person for any other blessing that God has bestowed upon them. In fact, my wife's loveliness is a reflection of her Godly character and I'm happy when others point that out.


----------



## Wannabee

Well said Rich. Another thing we must keep in the front of our minds is to keep spiritual beauty primary. If a woman looks good but is spiritually ugly I avoid any comments about her looks. Too often someone can think their looks are the true measure of their beauty. We are particularly careful about this with young girls. They must be clearly taught that their spiritual beauty is what truly counts.


----------



## calgal

Michael Butterfield said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Butterfield said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, let me dissuade of the idea that I am a pastor. And, if I ever become one, much to the dismay of some I can also assure you that I am not infallible.
> 
> Second, how I would go about welcoming someone with less than modest dress and gently and lovingly teach them to value themselves more highly and dress appropriately would be done in the same way any one else that I know who espouses a strong view on modesty. My acceptance of them is not based upon their way of dressing. They have much more value as a Christian and a garden variety pagan, which ever they may be, than in the way they dress. So, I would never accept or not accept a person based on the way they are dressed. It is not a ground for so doing. Then I would in a way that might take years do as you indicate gently and lovingly teach them. I am a little iffy about what you mean by value themselves more highly, but that aside, it would be over time. You think I always held this view? I learned it, so can others.
> 
> As for your other questions, let me say wearing certain things and acting a certain way are a large element constituting modesty. I will be the first to say/admit/recognize that modest is first and foremost a heart issue for men and women. Nevertheless, I will put it this way. I used to be on the campus of a certain very well known Christian University (which will remain anonymous) on occasion with the standing rule, a rule stringently enforced, that girls had to wear long dresses. Now these dresses were, I think again by rule, were virtually down to the floor. Many, however, who wore these dress were not modest women. Why? Because they knew the art of sensuality. They oozed with sensuality in the way they wore their hair, the way they walked, the way they wore the slightest makeup, and the places in which their dresses fit most snugly. So, did the clothes alone make them modest. No. So, it is wearing and acting, but even more importantly it is the heart.
> 
> As for what is modest for men, I think several post here have documented that issue well. For women in our culture, it is a bit more of a challenge so I offer some suggestions that will be of benefit from my perspective.
> 
> They are seen in what is commonly called the “Modesty Test”. A simple Goggle search will find you plenty of them. However, in all honestly, I really am not that convinced that Christian women are prepared to subject themselves to it. The test itself will, therefore, be easy for most to dismiss, especially when it infringes upon the way they want to dress. (I guess I better make a disclaimer here: This post is not meant to be indicating you personally or any other person who may think so, since I have never met you or anyone else that might think this post is directed at them personally)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do agree with Ms. deMoss on her definition of modesty and the test does not go to extremes. Unfortunately, the "women cover up because you are tempting me" mindset is worse perhaps than a woman dressing skankily. Most grown women make sure they are not "giving a free show" in my experience and that includes wearing shorts, skirts to or above the knee and pants.  They are going for comfort, not to be hoochie mamas.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## py3ak

I don't really want to get deeply involved in this thread, but I do want to make two textual notes. If Rebekah covers herself when she sees Isaac, then obviously before that time she was not covered; which means that around the servants in the camel caravan she felt quite free to let her hair, etc., be seen. So patently it was not part of patriarchal culture that all women must at all times have their hair thoroughly covered.

Second, if the priest is to uncover the head of the woman suspected of adultery, we must conclude that the priest is meant to be immune to the enticing power of her hair. Now this could be because priests (like hairdressers?) were endowed with a remarkable constancy in the face of the overwhelming allurement of dead keratin, or because it could be reasonably supposed that any man not in the grip of an overmastering lust would be able to limit a sexual response to hair to that found on the top of his wife's scalp.


----------



## DMcFadden

calgal said:


> Most grown women make sure they are not "giving a free show" in my experience and that includes wearing shorts, skirts to or above the knee and pants.  They are going for comfort, not to be hoochie mamas.



Hoochie mamas. 

I have sat out on this thread. My  . . .
1. Godly women know what to do and what not to do in dress. 
2. They should privately instruct younger women who are "still learning."
3. Men ARE wired from the factory to respond to visual stimuli. Women need to remember this.
4. Still, no man should lay the primary responsibility for lust on anyone but his own wicked imagination.

And, yes, Rich. Looking at the pictures of your wife with your kids, she is indeed a beautiful woman. And, judging from the kind of man you show yourself to be on PB, my guess is that her Godly character will radiate through her personality for decades to come. I see people like your wife who are still stunningly beautiful in their 80s, in large part because of their Godliness.


----------



## Pergamum

that dead keratin can look pretty good at times.



Sidenote:

Over here, many of the Mslm women cover up, but then they uncover in the presence of family. You know that you have bonded well with a local family when the wives and female family members do not cover up in your presence (i.e. you are considered close enough to relax their standards of modesty I guess, or at least relax their slavish obedeince to outward rules).


----------



## Pergamum

Py3ak: I have never thought of hairdressers as having amazing moral constancy before but you make a compelling case.


----------



## Kevin

py3ak said:


> I don't really want to get deeply involved in this thread, but I do want to make two textual notes. If Rebekah covers herself when she sees Isaac, then obviously before that time she was not covered; which means that around the servants in the camel caravan she felt quite free to let her hair, etc., be seen. So patently it was not part of patriarchal culture that all women must at all times have their hair thoroughly covered.
> 
> Second, if the priest is to uncover the head of the woman suspected of adultery, we must conclude that the priest is meant to be immune to the enticing power of her hair. Now this could be because priests (like hairdressers?) were endowed with a remarkable constancy in the face of the overwhelming allurement of dead keratin, or because it could be reasonably supposed that any man not in the grip of an overmastering lust would be able to limit a sexual response to hair to that found on the top of his wife's scalp.




Well said, Ruben! 

I had just this conversation with my wife on the way to church this morning. Her actions are more along the line of "primping". My (smart) wife said that it is the same as if a woman seeing her future husband checked her lipstick and reapplied it. The fact is that she was an unmarried woman travelling with several men UN-COVERED. This seems to demonstrate that the interpretation of her action of putting on her covering in this passage, put forward in this thread is not the best one.


----------



## py3ak

Shall I go down in history for my encomium of the noble ethics of hairdressers, do you think?

Here is another passage for consideration: [KJV]Genesis 38:14,15[/KJV]


> And she put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.
> When Judah saw her, *he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face*.



Here Tamar is taken for an harlot, not because she was flaunting her ankles, but because she covered her face. And in general the language seems to imply that her harlot's garments covered rather more than her widow's garments. Once again, patriarchal culture does not support a Muslim idea of modesty. (And speaking of Muslims, is it not true that so far from their garments lending to modesty, it actually turns women into sexual objects? I think it works like this: 
1. Sexual objects are dangerous; 
2. Women are sexual objects; 
3. Women are dangerous.
1'. Dangerous things must be covered
2'. Women are dangerous things.
3'. Women must be covered.
That would perhaps explain the report that it is common for fully covered Muslim women to be sexually solicited, more or less aggressively, by Muslim taxi drivers. Muslim men are not honoring their women in making them dress that way; they are rather inflaming their own sinful lusts by behaving as though women were nothing but illicit pleasure sacks.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Good point Ruben. I've heard multiple accounts where Muslim men have zero self-control. One of my Marines worked for a female Captain and when they deployed to Saudi Arabia they had to escort her on either side because men would literally walk up to her on the street and grab her breast. A similar incident was reported to me by a young officer in OIF 1.


----------



## kvanlaan

> I have wondered about the Greek statues we see in museums. They seem to portray the human form to show its grace. The intent is not to incite lust but to show the symmetry and form of humans. I have never thought of those things as evil.



Pergy, the thing about those is that they were created in a spirit of hedonism by artists who saw the place of men in a way very different than the Bible presents man's proper place to us. Yes, it was to show symmetry and form _but_ I would say that the motivation behind it and the appreciation for such a form was not as academic/artistic as you might think.

And personally, I think that we should all make an attempt to incorporate the words "hoochie mamas" into every PB thread for a period of no less than 30 days.


----------



## py3ak

Not quite zero self-control, Rich. They had enough self-control to avoid getting their lights punched out by a couple Marines!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> Not quite zero self-control, Rich. They had enough self-control to avoid getting their lights punched out by a couple Marines!



 That's true.

It's funny because there's a quote I was reading from a State Department Official who was in the Embassy in Somalia in 1993. She said a bunch of Somalis rolled up in a vehicle and threatened to attack the Embassy until they noticed the Marines on top of the embassy. They promptly stated: "Oh, we were just joking", loaded up, and drove away.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Two things:

Principle, not lists
Context


And btw, I breastfeed anywhere another child bottle feeds or an adult eats. Even muslim women are more concerned about their head being covering than their breast when it comes to feeding a child.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

I am not sure if anyone mentioned this or not, but does anyone think that Mary was sinning by letting her hair down when she spilled the anointing oil on Jesus' feet? My Pastor described it as if she were so caught up in the moment that she was unconcerned or oblivious to the cultural expectations of her.


----------



## BJClark

> TO ALL - Y'all are pathetic. Nit picking this to death. You know what modest dress is. Usually when people do not agree with modest dress, or try to haggle over the fine points of modest dress, they have ulterior motives, like their wifes don't agree, they like looking, or a host of other reasons. But I also know the ones on this thread, and how you just love to stir things up. (I won't mention any names Pergamum). Modest dress can take both Modern and Older forms. Personally, I like the older forms. When you see such a LADY, you can't help but think "Now there goes a religious woman who follows the Lord!" When I see most attempts at modest dress done by people who don't agree, I can read the "I'm a Liberal" from across the room.



yes, we do know what modest dress is, and we also know what immodest dress is, I actually like wearing longer dresses that go down mid calf, but the reason in the past that I always wore them was not because of personal convictions, but because of sin committed against me as a child, and being raised to believe it was some how MY fault I was molested. (so even there my motive to dress modestly was wrong).

Yet, I was an infant when it started, how sexual can an infant be? how sexual can an infant dress that would cause a man to lust after them? Men rape women who are not dressed skanky or like hoochie mamma's probably more so than they do those who do dress like that, and in turn the women are still blamed for the rape against them. 

I can't tell you how many times I have heard the words "If you wouldn't have done" or "if you wouldn't have been there.." or "if you wouldn't have been wearing..." this wouldn't have happened..I say HOG WASH..Men's hearts are evil and if they have it in their heart to lust or rape or commit whatever sin their heart can imagine, they are going to do just that...no matter what a woman wears or does.

So you see, I know from personal experience it is not how a person dresses that *causes* a man to lust, he lust's because that is a sin he struggles against God with.

It took me a long time to become comfortable wearing dresses that come just below the knee (which my husband prefers) and to become comfortable with who I am as a woman, and not be ashamed of the fact that is how God created me.

I guess that would be my ulterior motive you say people have who argue against modest dress (though I'm not arguing against modest dress, I'm arguing more about the attitude that immodest dress is *what causes* men to have sinful thoughts); men have sinful thought's because the hearts of men are evil.

I also know many women who dress modestly yet don't follow the Lord at all, they do so because it's more professional for their career's.

The point I'm trying to make here is that SOME men will lust after women no matter what they wear and whether or not any skin is showing or not, it is their thoughts that degrade the woman to a mere sex object.

Just as yes, some women WILL dress in order to get men to lust after them, but even that is their sinful heart before God and not seeing themselves as more than 'sex objects' for men's pleasure. They do not see who they are as God's creation, not necessarily God's child (as not all are God's children), but as His creation.


----------



## LadyFlynt

If anyone takes the time to look over previous threads, there was also discussion on context between myself and Reuben/Heidi. I also am familiar with others that have been missionaries and/or live in Hispanic areas. Context of some of these areas dictate that ladies NOT wear skirts or dresses...for as they say, "even the priest (in his robes) is not safe".


----------



## kvanlaan

Not long after I started reading this thread (seems like a week ago), I went to check my emails. Thre was a yahoo! banner with some person called Rianna (or something like that - we don't get out much over here) and though it was just her face, the eyes were of such an immodest bent that I scrolled her picture off the page until I was done with checking my mail. She could have been clothed ankle, wrist, and neck, and still been _highly_ inappropriate. The clothes should match the heart.


----------



## Romans922

kvanlaan said:


> Not long after I started reading this thread (seems like a week ago), I went to check my emails. Thre was a yahoo! banner with some person called Rianna (or something like that - we don't get out much over here) and though it was just her face, the eyes were of such an immodest bent that I scrolled her picture off the page until I was done with checking my mail. She could have been clothed ankle, wrist, and neck, and still been _highly_ inappropriate. The clothes should match the heart.



The clothes, shoes, jewlery, hair, makeup, etc. should match the heart: and they do.


----------



## Wannabee

Hippo said:


> It is an awful thought that a modestly dressed woman could be berated by a man for causing him to lust, talk about mote and beam.
> 
> While Women should dress modestly I have great sympathy with the posts here from women pointing out what a burden men often put on them. Surely our first reaction should not be to blame a women for having nice ankles but to mortify the sin in my own life that causes us to lust.
> 
> I also think that it is possible to recognise the beauty of a women in a pure way, we have got to be careful not to despise one of the gifts from God just because of our sinful nature.


Great statement Mike.

Can I be a bit blunt here? Simply put, a godly man SHOULD be able to stand in the midst of 100 naked women and not be tempted nor given to lust. That is the standard we should all strive for. It's been mentioned already, but let me state it again; a man is directly responsible to God for any lust in his own heart, period. We can no more blame others for our own sin than we can take credit for being saved. We all stand before God based on our own hearts. The victim mentality of our society screams out against the truth of this. But the truth stands and the blame shifting idea that women are the cause of the lust of men is fruitless and spiritually self-defeating.

As for women, the same standard exists. If her heart is to lure men's eyes then she will account for it. Her sin is her own, and she will be held ACCOUNTABLE BY GOD for any who have stumbled because of her sins. But even those who stumble are still accountable directly to God for their own sin, and cannot blame another.

Finally, women must keep in mind that the lure they use to draw a man will be the same bait by which they will need to keep him, barring a changed heart. If he's lured with sexiness, then he will need to be kept with sexiness. But if he's lured by godliness then the continued pursuit of godliness will keep him enthralled in that same glorious alure.


----------



## JBaldwin

> Finally, women must keep in mind that the lure they use to draw a man will be the same bait by which they will need to keep him, barring a changed heart. If he's lured with sexiness, then he will need to be kept with sexiness. But if he's lured by godliness then the continued pursuit of godliness will keep him enthralled in that same glorious alure.




I have always believed this, but I think this is the first time I have heard it verbalised. Thanks.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Wannabee said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is an awful thought that a modestly dressed woman could be berated by a man for causing him to lust, talk about mote and beam.
> 
> While Women should dress modestly I have great sympathy with the posts here from women pointing out what a burden men often put on them. Surely our first reaction should not be to blame a women for having nice ankles but to mortify the sin in my own life that causes us to lust.
> 
> I also think that it is possible to recognise the beauty of a women in a pure way, we have got to be careful not to despise one of the gifts from God just because of our sinful nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Great statement Mike.
> 
> Can I be a bit blunt here? Simply put, a godly man SHOULD be able to stand in the midst of 100 naked women and not be tempted nor given to lust. That is the standard we should all strive for. It's been mentioned already, but let me state it again; a man is directly responsible to God for any lust in his own heart, period. We can no more blame others for our own sin than we can take credit for being saved. We all stand before God based on our own hearts. The victim mentality of our society screams out against the truth of this. But the truth stands and the blame shifting idea that women are the cause of the lust of men is fruitless and spiritually self-defeating.
> 
> As for women, the same standard exists. If her heart is to lure men's eyes then she will account for it. Her sin is her own, and she will be held ACCOUNTABLE BY GOD for any who have stumbled because of her sins. But even those who stumble are still accountable directly to God for their own sin, and cannot blame another.
> 
> Finally, women must keep in mind that the lure they use to draw a man will be the same bait by which they will need to keep him, barring a changed heart. If he's lured with sexiness, then he will need to be kept with sexiness. But if he's lured by godliness then the continued pursuit of godliness will keep him enthralled in that same glorious alure.
Click to expand...


Well said Joe


----------



## FenderPriest

I haven't seen this posted so far in this thread, and just wanted to make it available as a resourceful tool. We use it for parenting at my church, and I feel that it's in accord with the Biblical norms of what is, and is not modest:
Modesty Heart Check


----------



## Pergamum

Wannabee said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is an awful thought that a modestly dressed woman could be berated by a man for causing him to lust, talk about mote and beam.
> 
> While Women should dress modestly I have great sympathy with the posts here from women pointing out what a burden men often put on them. Surely our first reaction should not be to blame a women for having nice ankles but to mortify the sin in my own life that causes us to lust.
> 
> I also think that it is possible to recognise the beauty of a women in a pure way, we have got to be careful not to despise one of the gifts from God just because of our sinful nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Great statement Mike.
> 
> Can I be a bit blunt here? Simply put, a godly man SHOULD be able to stand in the midst of 100 naked women and not be tempted nor given to lust. That is the standard we should all strive for. It's been mentioned already, but let me state it again; a man is directly responsible to God for any lust in his own heart, period. We can no more blame others for our own sin than we can take credit for being saved. We all stand before God based on our own hearts. The victim mentality of our society screams out against the truth of this. But the truth stands and the blame shifting idea that women are the cause of the lust of men is fruitless and spiritually self-defeating.
> 
> As for women, the same standard exists. If her heart is to lure men's eyes then she will account for it. Her sin is her own, and she will be held ACCOUNTABLE BY GOD for any who have stumbled because of her sins. But even those who stumble are still accountable directly to God for their own sin, and cannot blame another.
> 
> Finally, women must keep in mind that the lure they use to draw a man will be the same bait by which they will need to keep him, barring a changed heart. If he's lured with sexiness, then he will need to be kept with sexiness. But if he's lured by godliness then the continued pursuit of godliness will keep him enthralled in that same glorious alure.
Click to expand...


HA!  I am frequently around topless women. A few times even in church services! I have not yet been tempted...but then again, its a little different in my situation.


----------



## Pergamum

Wannabee said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is an awful thought that a modestly dressed woman could be berated by a man for causing him to lust, talk about mote and beam.
> 
> While Women should dress modestly I have great sympathy with the posts here from women pointing out what a burden men often put on them. Surely our first reaction should not be to blame a women for having nice ankles but to mortify the sin in my own life that causes us to lust.
> 
> I also think that it is possible to recognise the beauty of a women in a pure way, we have got to be careful not to despise one of the gifts from God just because of our sinful nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Great statement Mike.
> 
> Can I be a bit blunt here? Simply put, a godly man SHOULD be able to stand in the midst of 100 naked women and not be tempted nor given to lust. That is the standard we should all strive for. It's been mentioned already, but let me state it again; a man is directly responsible to God for any lust in his own heart, period. We can no more blame others for our own sin than we can take credit for being saved. We all stand before God based on our own hearts. The victim mentality of our society screams out against the truth of this. But the truth stands and the blame shifting idea that women are the cause of the lust of men is fruitless and spiritually self-defeating.
> 
> As for women, the same standard exists. If her heart is to lure men's eyes then she will account for it. Her sin is her own, and she will be held ACCOUNTABLE BY GOD for any who have stumbled because of her sins. But even those who stumble are still accountable directly to God for their own sin, and cannot blame another.
> 
> Finally, women must keep in mind that the lure they use to draw a man will be the same bait by which they will need to keep him, barring a changed heart. If he's lured with sexiness, then he will need to be kept with sexiness. But if he's lured by godliness then the continued pursuit of godliness will keep him enthralled in that same glorious alure.
Click to expand...


HA!  I am frequently around topless women. A few times even in church services! I have not yet been tempted...but then again, its a little different in my situation.


----------



## FenderPriest

Pergamum said:


> HA!  I am frequently around topless women. A few times even in church services! I have not yet been tempted..


Word. When this happened to me on a missionary trip (a woman just started openly breastfeeding in the service), I was more shocked than anything. No lusting on my part, thanks to grace, but it wasn't out of place in my opinion.


----------



## Pergamum

Ha, have you ever seen a lady breastfeed a baby pig! That's when the real shock sets in.


----------



## CDM

Pergamum said:


> Ha, have you ever seen a lady breastfeed a baby pig! That's when the real shock sets in.


----------



## BJClark

Wannabee;




> Finally, women must keep in mind that the lure they use to draw a man will be the same bait by which they will need to keep him, barring a changed heart. If he's lured with sexiness, then he will need to be kept with sexiness. But if he's lured by godliness then the continued pursuit of godliness will keep him enthralled in that same glorious alure.



And this is what I address when I speak to women I know who dress immodestly, "what type of man are you wanting to attract?" 

Do you want to attract one who has no respect for you as a woman or as a person, one who if you 'don't look a certain way' he will soon lose interest?

Or do you want to attract a man who respects you as a woman, and who see's past the outward appearance?

Addressing these issues with women one can tell their heart, those who care about the type of man they attract tend to change the way they dress, those who don't...don't..

I am not one to shy away from speaking up to women or young girls, even those I've never met..when in the store with my daughters shopping I have been known to make comments to other girls shopping about how certain clothes make them look and ask IF that is the message they desire to send..

this is actually an area of contention with my step-daughter (who lives w/ her mother), she does not like me shopping for her, or shopping with me, because I won't buy certain fashions, that she likes because they are "provocative" and I believe they are inappropriate for 15 year old girls to wear, even in the privacy of their own homes. However, she prefers to shop w/ me over shopping w/ her dad, because I will pick out girly clothes but her dad on the other hand has told her either she gets what he's willing to buy her or he will purchase her men's t-shirts that she can wear instead, because they will cover even more.


----------



## Gloria

Simply_Nikki said:


> I hope this doesn't offend anyone (and if it does, moderators don't hesitate to delete this post) But i just wanted to give an exmample of the types of skirts/dresses I would pick out among all the "other" choices to wear.



Very cute!  Those peep toes and stilletos could get you in trouble though. Even as a woman, I've always considered those "sexy" shoes.


----------



## JBaldwin

Gloria said:


> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this doesn't offend anyone (and if it does, moderators don't hesitate to delete this post) But i just wanted to give an exmample of the types of skirts/dresses I would pick out among all the "other" choices to wear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very cute!  Those peep toes and stilletos could get you in trouble though. Even as a woman, I've always considered those "sexy" shoes.
Click to expand...


Not to mention the back trouble they cause!


----------



## calgal

JBaldwin said:


> Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this doesn't offend anyone (and if it does, moderators don't hesitate to delete this post) But i just wanted to give an exmample of the types of skirts/dresses I would pick out among all the "other" choices to wear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very cute!  Those peep toes and stilletos could get you in trouble though. Even as a woman, I've always considered those "sexy" shoes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention the back trouble they cause!
Click to expand...


I love the skirts but am a bit to "balance impaired" for the shoes. Not to mention the weather making it downright hazardous to wear heels for the next month or so.


----------



## Dieter Schneider

I never knew that there is so much mockery found among professing Christians.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

calgal said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very cute!  Those peep toes and stilletos could get you in trouble though. Even as a woman, I've always considered those "sexy" shoes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the back trouble they cause!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love the skirts but am a bit to "balance impaired" for the shoes. Not to mention the weather making it downright hazardous to wear heels for the next month or so.
Click to expand...


I'm a short one 5''2 1/2", so I like wearing heels for height, but usually no more than 2 1/2". I was just illustrating the type of skirts and dresses I purchase, the shoes weren't to be included in the example.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

Dieter Schneider said:


> I never knew that there is so much mockery found among professing Christians.


 
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.  ?


----------



## calgal

Simply_Nikki said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the back trouble they cause!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the skirts but am a bit to "balance impaired" for the shoes. Not to mention the weather making it downright hazardous to wear heels for the next month or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a short one 5''2 1/2", so I like wearing heels for height, but usually no more than 2 1/2". I was just illustrating the type of skirts and dresses I purchase, the shoes weren't to be included in the example.
Click to expand...


Most of my skirts are that length but I have a couple really long skirts that are useful in winter (but are too warm). those were nice shoes though.


----------



## bookslover

calgal said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very cute!  Those peep toes and stilletos could get you in trouble though. Even as a woman, I've always considered those "sexy" shoes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the back trouble they cause!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love the skirts but am a bit to "balance impaired" for the shoes. Not to mention the weather making it downright hazardous to wear heels for the next month or so.
Click to expand...


I think the skirt in the middle is lovely. And the black dress on the bottom is good for going to work. Black works in any situation, I guess...


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

I finally had the opportunity to listen to Pastor Martin last evening. As always, he gave a biblically cogent argument in a loving and practical manner. in my opinion, he's one of, if not the best english speaking preacher of our day.


----------



## Dieter Schneider

Simply_Nikki said:


> Dieter Schneider said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never knew that there is so much mockery found among professing Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.  ?
Click to expand...


Why does Al Martin attract so much opposition? Is Scripture not on his side? I'd prefer argument to abuse.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dieter Schneider said:


> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dieter Schneider said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never knew that there is so much mockery found among professing Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.  ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does Al Martin attract so much opposition? Is Scripture not on his side? I'd prefer argument to abuse.
Click to expand...


Dieter,

I'll answer this question. I'm actually surprised you asked it if you read the thread. I'm not aware of anyone who has actually listened to the audio actually criticized what Pastor Martin said. There was a discussion that ensued around what modesty is/isn't, who is responsible for it, what the motivation for it is, etc. I think you need to separate the two discussions because I've read nothing but praise for his actual Sunday School class.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Coram Deo said:


> Wow, What a way to start a morning...  Where do I start...... (and I have not even had my coffee yet)...
> 
> First, no one is saying we should add our own rules or write a collection of extra biblical talmudic law. Nor is anyone trying to be a Pharisee, one who adds to the laws of God or one who believes they are justified by keeping laws. As for Sanctification, all I will say is, "Be Holy for I am Holy" saith the Lord. We are called to be Holy and to grow in Holiness everyday.
> 
> Now I know that some of you do not accept the interpretation of some of these passages but I do and many others do to. But this is far from Adding to Scripture or being a Pharisee and it certainly is not legalistic.. What it boils down to is interpretation of scriptures and not adding to it scripture.. I see a list in scripture and I am not the first person and I am not the last person to see them. ECF, Reformers, Puritans, and Moderns have all seen the same list... We may disagree to the list but try not to judge the motives of those who hold to a stricter list for modesty.... I do it out of Love for God and to Grow Holier everyday... "Fear God, and Keep His Commandments" is the whole duty of man.
> 
> And Remember "Be Holy, For I am Holy"



It boils down to a strain of legalism Michael. One that Paul so clearly condemns over and over. Sanctification by works is as deadly, perhaps more than justification by works. You are trying to finish what God has started and will complete. You confess that you are justified by faith alone right Michael? Who has taught you or how have you concluded that *you *must now clean your life up and live holy by adhering to certain do's and don'ts . As you continue to do these do's and dont's you will become more and more like Christ. Hence, obedience is the key to godliness/Christlikeness. Paul is crystal clear in Galatians about this problem. He taught them that God was saving by "faith alone," without the law. In fact, as the law had no part of their salvation, it no longer had part in their perfection (ongoing sanctification). Soon after Paul left these Galatians, some came behind him and taught them to continue in the law and customs. 

Galatians 3:1-11, "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? *Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.* Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."

Those living by the do's and don'ts found in Scripture have placed themselves under the curse of the law, the very thing Christ set us free from! So why do you so willingly place yourself under a system of rules? Why do you not rather live by the faith that saved us? My brother Michael, it can be for no other reason than having believed a lie; *the lie of works-sanctification*. 
*
"The just shall live by faith."*, Righteous living (sanctification) is obtained the same way righteous standing (justification) is by faith alone. It is not "progressively" obtained that one grows into over 20, 30, or 40 years of obedience to peccadillo rules. Christ is our sanctification Whom we received by faith. Remember Paul saying "I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me"? 

You claim this 'duty of man' is done out of love for God, and to grow holier, yet scripture speaks against the method you are striving to gain the goal by. It is by Grace through faith Michael. Not by any list that someone has concocted. The only thing that can bring us into good standing with God is the finished work of Christ. This is the salvation message we believe by faith. Having believed this, why do you now act as if you are under a performance system after becoming righteous by faith-alone? Will works help you to become righteous (saved) - no! So why do you act as if works will now help you become holier? I fought this disease for years under a works based sanctification preacher. I struggled daily to please an angry God. It made me almost go mad. Then I realized We cannot do anything to make God love us more, or do anything to 'work' ourselves back into God's good favor after we sin. Christ died because we COULDN"T do anything to earn His grace, before or after salvation. If we could be in 'good standing' with God by living right for any period of time then Christ would not have had to die. There is nothing we could do before being saved to become righteous as there is nothing we can do now to become more righteous. As believers, we are the righteousness of Christ already by faith! We live righteously by this same faith, not by righteous works. We are not perfected/completed by our good works, for we are already perfect/complete in Him. 

So, are we not to read God's word, pray, worship, give, serve, etc.? Of course we are. However, as we perform these activities we must realize that these activities will not make God love us any more, gain us any favor with God. Any moral self improvement plan is doomed to fail. Yes, we walk, yes we try to obey, yes we run, yes we labor, but we do all this by faith in Christ alone and His cross.


----------



## Coram Deo

Amazing Grace,

I have not said much in the past day or so in this thread.. I have even thought that it might not be worth anymore time since I believe we have exhausted everything and I have not been convinced that my list is unbiblical. But I thought I should answer your post with regards to sanctification... 

I have to completely disagree with you. I believe Sanctification is so important that without it no man, woman, or child will see God. You really need to read Holiness by J.C. Ryle... I can really do no justice to the work... It is one of the best books I have ever read....

In light of the discussions related to sanctification, Ryle’s comments are relevant.

“It is a subject which is peculiarly seasonable in the present day. Strange doctrines have risen up of late upon the whole subject of sanctification. Some appear to confound it with justification. Others fritter it away to nothing, under the pretence of zeal for free grace, and practically neglect it altogether. Others are so much afraid of ‘works’ being made a part of justification, that they can hardly find any place at all for ‘works’ in their religion."

In another section, Ryle stressed the cost of living a holy life in the midst of an unholy world. He urged his readers to take up the fight and wage daily war against the world, the flesh, and the devil in whatever arenas these enemies were encountered.

For Ryle, sanctification and growth in holiness are essential evidences that saving faith has happened and thereby serve to aid in producing assurance in the heart of believers. This assurance is something to be sought after and pursued heartily by the believer.

Let me aleast outline his books....

A) It is the invariable result of that vital union with Christ which true faith gives to a Christian. “The faith which has not a sanctifying influence on the character is no better than the faith of devils.”

B) It is the outcome and inseparable consequence of regeneration. *“Where there is no sanctification there is no regeneration.”*

C) *It is the only certain evidence of that indwelling of the Holy Spirit *which is essential to salvation. “The seal that the Spirit stamps on Christ’s people is sanctification.”

D) It is the only sure mark of God’s election. “Elect men and women may be known and distinguished by holy lives.”

E) It is a reality that will always be seen. *A man’s “sanctification will be something felt and seen*, though he himself may not understand it.”

F) It is a reality for which every believer is responsible. *“Believers are eminently and peculiarly responsible and under a special obligation to live holy lives.”*

G) It is a thing which admits of growth and degrees. *“A man may climb from one step to another in holiness and be far more sanctified at one period of his life than another.”*

H) It depends greatly on a diligent use of scriptural means. *“He will never bless the soul of that man who pretends to be so high and spiritual that he can get on without [the means of grace].”*

I) It is a thing which does not prevent a man having a great deal of inward spiritual conflict. “A true Christian is one who has not only peace of conscience, but war within.”

J) It is a thing which cannot justify a man, and yet it pleases God. *“The Bible distinctly teaches that the holy actions of a sanctified man, although imperfect, are pleasing in the sight of God.”*

K) It is a thing which will be found absolutely necessary as a witness to our character in the great Day of Judgment. *“It will be utterly useless to plead that we believed in Christ unless our faith has had some sanctifying effect and been seen in our lives.”*

L) It is absolutely necessary in order to train and prepare us for heaven. *“We must be saints before we die if we are to be saints afterwards in glory.”*

Ryle's Applications are the following

1. Let anyone who calls himself a Christian yet has not concern for Sanctification realize his perilous position.
2. Test your own salvation by your progress in sanctification.
3. Begin sanctification with Christ.
4. Work at sanctification continually.
5. There is no shame in making much of holiness; holiness = happiness


Again, Read the Book... I can not stress a more important book.... What I am and Ryle is espousing is not in any form legalism.. Legalism is believing one is justified by works and Pharisaicalism is adding to the law which is a subset of legalism... Remember, Justification is by Faith alone but without works Faith is Dead.... 

Michael



Amazing Grace said:


> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, What a way to start a morning...  Where do I start...... (and I have not even had my coffee yet)...
> 
> First, no one is saying we should add our own rules or write a collection of extra biblical talmudic law. Nor is anyone trying to be a Pharisee, one who adds to the laws of God or one who believes they are justified by keeping laws. As for Sanctification, all I will say is, "Be Holy for I am Holy" saith the Lord. We are called to be Holy and to grow in Holiness everyday.
> 
> Now I know that some of you do not accept the interpretation of some of these passages but I do and many others do to. But this is far from Adding to Scripture or being a Pharisee and it certainly is not legalistic.. What it boils down to is interpretation of scriptures and not adding to it scripture.. I see a list in scripture and I am not the first person and I am not the last person to see them. ECF, Reformers, Puritans, and Moderns have all seen the same list... We may disagree to the list but try not to judge the motives of those who hold to a stricter list for modesty.... I do it out of Love for God and to Grow Holier everyday... "Fear God, and Keep His Commandments" is the whole duty of man.
> 
> And Remember "Be Holy, For I am Holy"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It boils down to a strain of legalism Michael. One that Paul so clearly condemns over and over. Sanctification by works is as deadly, perhaps more than justification by works. You are trying to finish what God has started and will complete. You confess that you are justified by faith alone right Michael? Who has taught you or how have you concluded that *you *must now clean your life up and live holy by adhering to certain do's and don'ts . As you continue to do these do's and dont's you will become more and more like Christ. Hence, obedience is the key to godliness/Christlikeness. Paul is crystal clear in Galatians about this problem. He taught them that God was saving by "faith alone," without the law. In fact, as the law had no part of their salvation, it no longer had part in their perfection (ongoing sanctification). Soon after Paul left these Galatians, some came behind him and taught them to continue in the law and customs.
> 
> Galatians 3:1-11, "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? *Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.* Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."
> 
> Those living by the do's and don'ts found in Scripture have placed themselves under the curse of the law, the very thing Christ set us free from! So why do you so willingly place yourself under a system of rules? Why do you not rather live by the faith that saved us? My brother Michael, it can be for no other reason than having believed a lie; *the lie of works-sanctification*.
> *
> "The just shall live by faith."*, Righteous living (sanctification) is obtained the same way righteous standing (justification) is by faith alone. It is not "progressively" obtained that one grows into over 20, 30, or 40 years of obedience to peccadillo rules. Christ is our sanctification Whom we received by faith. Remember Paul saying "I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me"?
> 
> You claim this 'duty of man' is done out of love for God, and to grow holier, yet scripture speaks against the method you are striving to gain the goal by. It is by Grace through faith Michael. Not by any list that someone has concocted. The only thing that can bring us into good standing with God is the finished work of Christ. This is the salvation message we believe by faith. Having believed this, why do you now act as if you are under a performance system after becoming righteous by faith-alone? Will works help you to become righteous (saved) - no! So why do you act as if works will now help you become holier? I fought this disease for years under a works based sanctification preacher. I struggled daily to please an angry God. It made me almost go mad. Then I realized We cannot do anything to make God love us more, or do anything to 'work' ourselves back into God's good favor after we sin. Christ died because we COULDN"T do anything to earn His grace, before or after salvation. If we could be in 'good standing' with God by living right for any period of time then Christ would not have had to die. There is nothing we could do before being saved to become righteous as there is nothing we can do now to become more righteous. As believers, we are the righteousness of Christ already by faith! We live righteously by this same faith, not by righteous works. We are not perfected/completed by our good works, for we are already perfect/complete in Him.
> 
> So, are we not to read God's word, pray, worship, give, serve, etc.? Of course we are. However, as we perform these activities we must realize that these activities will not make God love us any more, gain us any favor with God. Any moral self improvement plan is doomed to fail. Yes, we walk, yes we try to obey, yes we run, yes we labor, but we do all this by faith in Christ alone and His cross.
Click to expand...

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Simply_Nikki

I guess that's why I was so confused. I didn't understand why Mr. Schneider would claim that any of us were being abusive towards each other or towards Al Martin. I listened to part of his message, and from what I heard, I seem to be in agreeance. All I've seen was civil (and at times, silly) debate and discussion as to the specifics of what is "modest". 

I'm also not too sure of the "mockey" found among the "professing christians" that was alluded to. But I'm sure all of us here on the PB have demonstrated our desire to please the Lord, and that we're not just mere "professors" of Christ but his followers. 




SemperFideles said:


> Dieter Schneider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does Al Martin attract so much opposition? Is Scripture not on his side? I'd prefer argument to abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dieter,
> 
> I'll answer this question. I'm actually surprised you asked it if you read the thread. I'm not aware of anyone who has actually listened to the audio actually criticized what Pastor Martin said. There was a discussion that ensued around what modesty is/isn't, who is responsible for it, what the motivation for it is, etc. I think you need to separate the two discussions because I've read nothing but praise for his actual Sunday School class.
Click to expand...


----------



## py3ak

Michael, you say that you have not been convinced that your list is unBiblical; but I do wonder if you have any comment on the reversal that has been established with regard to a couple of texts/points that you made.

For instance, Isaac and Rebekah makes a point opposite to the one you listed it for.
Tamar and Judah shows that in patriarchal culture veiling your face was the very reverse of modesty.
The priest unveiling a woman may show that she was ordinarily veiled: but it also showed that being unveiled is not necessarily/probably going to promote lust.

Don't you feel that this warrants at least a cursory review of your hermeneutical method?


----------



## moral necessity

It should also be considered that many men remain confused over the line at which attraction terminates and lust begins. There is nothing wrong with our God-given attraction to women and their features. The very "wow" that it creates ought to cause us to praise God for his creating us to experience such. Often, in our striving to exterminate lust, we end up condemning the very Godly desires and attractions that the creator put in man to begin with, along with condemning and stifling the natural beauty and attractiveness that God intended for women to have towards men. So, we men must be careful to not condemn the true stirrings of our desires towards a woman's features when we see them. Yet, we are not to purposefully stir the pot, so to speak, in order to inflame these desires into an inordinate sort of tumult or storm, for that is what lust is. And, women should not be ashamed if their natural, God-given features cause and entice a man to a moving and a stirring of his desires towards her beauty. For, God has so gifted them to have the ability to do so, for that is how it was meant to be. Yet, they are not to focus on leading men to having those desires become inflamed, so as to become inordinate and tumultuous, and improper and unbecoming. All of us must be cautious in drawing the proper distinction between a stirring of our desires, and a tumultuous and inflamed stirring of the same, for error in one direction is just as corrupt as error in the other.

So, blessings to you women for being beautiful and attractive, and blessings to God for creating men to gravitate towards such! And, what misery sin has created, in tending our desires to become inflamed and tumultuous beyond propriety! The solution is not found in diminishing and stifling the God-given desires into near non-existence, for this is the monk's solution. Rather, the solution is the gradual reign and dominion and sanctification of the Holy Spirit, which is brought about of his own doing. He will subdue our enemies; and he will place them under his feet. And, he will restrain the lust within us that we tend towards in all of our areas of desire.

Blessings!


----------



## Vonnie Dee

*websites for coverings with pictures*

I'm curious, does anyone know of a good website that sells headcoverings for Christian women? A site with photos.[/QUOTE]

I have ordered some of my coverings from these two web sites. I like to cover most of my hair. Most of these styles comply with Jewish standards of modesty. I usually wear snoods and soft hats. They are easy to wear, store, and the come in many colors. Also, they are not a distraction like those big "church hats" can be. There is also a skirt site, if anyone is interested. 

Welcome to Tznius.com - Modest Clothing - Modest Jewish Clothing, Tznius

Welcome to ModestWorld.com! The first Rabbinical approved clothing store on the web! Hats, Snoods, Caps, Head Scarves, Berets...Tznius Clothing for Women & Girls...Modest Jewish Clothing...Modest Israeli Clothing...Soft...Cotton...Full Coverage.

Welcome to JustDenimSkirts.com , Long Denim Skirts (having a sale right now)


----------



## Pergamum

snoods? Ha, what's a snood...sounds funny, though.


----------



## Vonnie Dee

It does sound kind of funny. In fact, if you google it you will get replies for a game that I am not familiar with. However, if you go to the sites I have suggested you will see what they are.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Pergy, a snood is a baglike covering (a woman's hair is held in the bag rather than her having to pin it up). You've seen netted snoods on women that dress in Civil War reenactments...there are some cloth type ones that were popular in the Tudor era. I've worn both. If you go to the sites Evon listed and click on the snoods, you'll see some there also.


----------



## Stephen

Amazing Grace said:


> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, What a way to start a morning...  Where do I start...... (and I have not even had my coffee yet)...
> 
> First, no one is saying we should add our own rules or write a collection of extra biblical talmudic law. Nor is anyone trying to be a Pharisee, one who adds to the laws of God or one who believes they are justified by keeping laws. As for Sanctification, all I will say is, "Be Holy for I am Holy" saith the Lord. We are called to be Holy and to grow in Holiness everyday.
> 
> Now I know that some of you do not accept the interpretation of some of these passages but I do and many others do to. But this is far from Adding to Scripture or being a Pharisee and it certainly is not legalistic.. What it boils down to is interpretation of scriptures and not adding to it scripture.. I see a list in scripture and I am not the first person and I am not the last person to see them. ECF, Reformers, Puritans, and Moderns have all seen the same list... We may disagree to the list but try not to judge the motives of those who hold to a stricter list for modesty.... I do it out of Love for God and to Grow Holier everyday... "Fear God, and Keep His Commandments" is the whole duty of man.
> 
> And Remember "Be Holy, For I am Holy"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It boils down to a strain of legalism Michael. One that Paul so clearly condemns over and over. Sanctification by works is as deadly, perhaps more than justification by works. You are trying to finish what God has started and will complete. You confess that you are justified by faith alone right Michael? Who has taught you or how have you concluded that *you *must now clean your life up and live holy by adhering to certain do's and don'ts . As you continue to do these do's and dont's you will become more and more like Christ. Hence, obedience is the key to godliness/Christlikeness. Paul is crystal clear in Galatians about this problem. He taught them that God was saving by "faith alone," without the law. In fact, as the law had no part of their salvation, it no longer had part in their perfection (ongoing sanctification). Soon after Paul left these Galatians, some came behind him and taught them to continue in the law and customs.
> 
> Galatians 3:1-11, "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? *Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.* Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."
> 
> Those living by the do's and don'ts found in Scripture have placed themselves under the curse of the law, the very thing Christ set us free from! So why do you so willingly place yourself under a system of rules? Why do you not rather live by the faith that saved us? My brother Michael, it can be for no other reason than having believed a lie; *the lie of works-sanctification*.
> *
> "The just shall live by faith."*, Righteous living (sanctification) is obtained the same way righteous standing (justification) is by faith alone. It is not "progressively" obtained that one grows into over 20, 30, or 40 years of obedience to peccadillo rules. Christ is our sanctification Whom we received by faith. Remember Paul saying "I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me"?
> 
> You claim this 'duty of man' is done out of love for God, and to grow holier, yet scripture speaks against the method you are striving to gain the goal by. It is by Grace through faith Michael. Not by any list that someone has concocted. The only thing that can bring us into good standing with God is the finished work of Christ. This is the salvation message we believe by faith. Having believed this, why do you now act as if you are under a performance system after becoming righteous by faith-alone? Will works help you to become righteous (saved) - no! So why do you act as if works will now help you become holier? I fought this disease for years under a works based sanctification preacher. I struggled daily to please an angry God. It made me almost go mad. Then I realized We cannot do anything to make God love us more, or do anything to 'work' ourselves back into God's good favor after we sin. Christ died because we COULDN"T do anything to earn His grace, before or after salvation. If we could be in 'good standing' with God by living right for any period of time then Christ would not have had to die. There is nothing we could do before being saved to become righteous as there is nothing we can do now to become more righteous. As believers, we are the righteousness of Christ already by faith! We live righteously by this same faith, not by righteous works. We are not perfected/completed by our good works, for we are already perfect/complete in Him.
> 
> So, are we not to read God's word, pray, worship, give, serve, etc.? Of course we are. However, as we perform these activities we must realize that these activities will not make God love us any more, gain us any favor with God. Any moral self improvement plan is doomed to fail. Yes, we walk, yes we try to obey, yes we run, yes we labor, but we do all this by faith in Christ alone and His cross.
Click to expand...


Check your reformed confessions and Scripture, because justification and sanctification are both acts of God's free grace, but sanctification is an infusion of grace by the Spirit (WLC Question 77). Sanctification is God's grace at work in us but it also requires works from us. Sanctification is always progressive and if it is not, then it is an indication that one is not justified by faith. Luther refered to the works in sanctification as the fruits of righteousness. I think you mistated the point when you said that the law has no part in our sanctification. The law certainly is at work in our sanctification. The third use of the law is the means of holiness. We are delivered from the law as a covenant of works, so that we are neither justified or condemned, but we are called to walk in holiness and continually put to death the deeds of the body. You have to make a clear distinction between justification and sanctification.


----------



## FenderPriest

Just side note: Reading over this post, and considering how my own wife dresses, I just want to offer a public praise to her that she has always dressed modestly. I do not agree with Coram Deo's presentation of biblical modesty. However, as far as Martin's sermon, and the general consensuses is of biblical female modesty, my wife has always been exemplary in her dress. She will even ask me to critique her new cloths as to whether they are modest or not - not merely relying upon her, or her friend's assessment. I know how rare this is among women, even Christian women today. How great God has been to bless me with such a wife! I am entirely undeserving, but my wife has been such a gracious gift from our Father.


----------



## Stephen

Coram Deo said:


> Amazing Grace,
> 
> I have not said much in the past day or so in this thread.. I have even thought that it might not be worth anymore time since I believe we have exhausted everything and I have not been convinced that my list is unbiblical. But I thought I should answer your post with regards to sanctification...
> 
> I have to completely disagree with you. I believe Sanctification is so important that without it no man, woman, or child will see God. You really need to read Holiness by J.C. Ryle... I can really do no justice to the work... It is one of the best books I have ever read....
> 
> In light of the discussions related to sanctification, Ryle’s comments are relevant.
> 
> “It is a subject which is peculiarly seasonable in the present day. Strange doctrines have risen up of late upon the whole subject of sanctification. Some appear to confound it with justification. Others fritter it away to nothing, under the pretence of zeal for free grace, and practically neglect it altogether. Others are so much afraid of ‘works’ being made a part of justification, that they can hardly find any place at all for ‘works’ in their religion."
> 
> In another section, Ryle stressed the cost of living a holy life in the midst of an unholy world. He urged his readers to take up the fight and wage daily war against the world, the flesh, and the devil in whatever arenas these enemies were encountered.
> 
> For Ryle, sanctification and growth in holiness are essential evidences that saving faith has happened and thereby serve to aid in producing assurance in the heart of believers. This assurance is something to be sought after and pursued heartily by the believer.
> 
> Let me aleast outline his books....
> 
> A) It is the invariable result of that vital union with Christ which true faith gives to a Christian. “The faith which has not a sanctifying influence on the character is no better than the faith of devils.”
> 
> B) It is the outcome and inseparable consequence of regeneration. *“Where there is no sanctification there is no regeneration.”*
> 
> C) *It is the only certain evidence of that indwelling of the Holy Spirit *which is essential to salvation. “The seal that the Spirit stamps on Christ’s people is sanctification.”
> 
> D) It is the only sure mark of God’s election. “Elect men and women may be known and distinguished by holy lives.”
> 
> E) It is a reality that will always be seen. *A man’s “sanctification will be something felt and seen*, though he himself may not understand it.”
> 
> F) It is a reality for which every believer is responsible. *“Believers are eminently and peculiarly responsible and under a special obligation to live holy lives.”*
> 
> G) It is a thing which admits of growth and degrees. *“A man may climb from one step to another in holiness and be far more sanctified at one period of his life than another.”*
> 
> H) It depends greatly on a diligent use of scriptural means. *“He will never bless the soul of that man who pretends to be so high and spiritual that he can get on without [the means of grace].”*
> 
> I) It is a thing which does not prevent a man having a great deal of inward spiritual conflict. “A true Christian is one who has not only peace of conscience, but war within.”
> 
> J) It is a thing which cannot justify a man, and yet it pleases God. *“The Bible distinctly teaches that the holy actions of a sanctified man, although imperfect, are pleasing in the sight of God.”*
> 
> K) It is a thing which will be found absolutely necessary as a witness to our character in the great Day of Judgment. *“It will be utterly useless to plead that we believed in Christ unless our faith has had some sanctifying effect and been seen in our lives.”*
> 
> L) It is absolutely necessary in order to train and prepare us for heaven. *“We must be saints before we die if we are to be saints afterwards in glory.”*
> 
> Ryle's Applications are the following
> 
> 1. Let anyone who calls himself a Christian yet has not concern for Sanctification realize his perilous position.
> 2. Test your own salvation by your progress in sanctification.
> 3. Begin sanctification with Christ.
> 4. Work at sanctification continually.
> 5. There is no shame in making much of holiness; holiness = happiness
> 
> 
> Again, Read the Book... I can not stress a more important book.... What I am and Ryle is espousing is not in any form legalism.. Legalism is believing one is justified by works and Pharisaicalism is adding to the law which is a subset of legalism... Remember, Justification is by Faith alone but without works Faith is Dead....
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, What a way to start a morning...  Where do I start...... (and I have not even had my coffee yet)...
> 
> First, no one is saying we should add our own rules or write a collection of extra biblical talmudic law. Nor is anyone trying to be a Pharisee, one who adds to the laws of God or one who believes they are justified by keeping laws. As for Sanctification, all I will say is, "Be Holy for I am Holy" saith the Lord. We are called to be Holy and to grow in Holiness everyday.
> 
> Now I know that some of you do not accept the interpretation of some of these passages but I do and many others do to. But this is far from Adding to Scripture or being a Pharisee and it certainly is not legalistic.. What it boils down to is interpretation of scriptures and not adding to it scripture.. I see a list in scripture and I am not the first person and I am not the last person to see them. ECF, Reformers, Puritans, and Moderns have all seen the same list... We may disagree to the list but try not to judge the motives of those who hold to a stricter list for modesty.... I do it out of Love for God and to Grow Holier everyday... "Fear God, and Keep His Commandments" is the whole duty of man.
> 
> And Remember "Be Holy, For I am Holy"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It boils down to a strain of legalism Michael. One that Paul so clearly condemns over and over. Sanctification by works is as deadly, perhaps more than justification by works. You are trying to finish what God has started and will complete. You confess that you are justified by faith alone right Michael? Who has taught you or how have you concluded that *you *must now clean your life up and live holy by adhering to certain do's and don'ts . As you continue to do these do's and dont's you will become more and more like Christ. Hence, obedience is the key to godliness/Christlikeness. Paul is crystal clear in Galatians about this problem. He taught them that God was saving by "faith alone," without the law. In fact, as the law had no part of their salvation, it no longer had part in their perfection (ongoing sanctification). Soon after Paul left these Galatians, some came behind him and taught them to continue in the law and customs.
> 
> Galatians 3:1-11, "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? *Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.* Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."
> 
> Those living by the do's and don'ts found in Scripture have placed themselves under the curse of the law, the very thing Christ set us free from! So why do you so willingly place yourself under a system of rules? Why do you not rather live by the faith that saved us? My brother Michael, it can be for no other reason than having believed a lie; *the lie of works-sanctification*.
> *
> "The just shall live by faith."*, Righteous living (sanctification) is obtained the same way righteous standing (justification) is by faith alone. It is not "progressively" obtained that one grows into over 20, 30, or 40 years of obedience to peccadillo rules. Christ is our sanctification Whom we received by faith. Remember Paul saying "I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me"?
> 
> You claim this 'duty of man' is done out of love for God, and to grow holier, yet scripture speaks against the method you are striving to gain the goal by. It is by Grace through faith Michael. Not by any list that someone has concocted. The only thing that can bring us into good standing with God is the finished work of Christ. This is the salvation message we believe by faith. Having believed this, why do you now act as if you are under a performance system after becoming righteous by faith-alone? Will works help you to become righteous (saved) - no! So why do you act as if works will now help you become holier? I fought this disease for years under a works based sanctification preacher. I struggled daily to please an angry God. It made me almost go mad. Then I realized We cannot do anything to make God love us more, or do anything to 'work' ourselves back into God's good favor after we sin. Christ died because we COULDN"T do anything to earn His grace, before or after salvation. If we could be in 'good standing' with God by living right for any period of time then Christ would not have had to die. There is nothing we could do before being saved to become righteous as there is nothing we can do now to become more righteous. As believers, we are the righteousness of Christ already by faith! We live righteously by this same faith, not by righteous works. We are not perfected/completed by our good works, for we are already perfect/complete in Him.
> 
> So, are we not to read God's word, pray, worship, give, serve, etc.? Of course we are. However, as we perform these activities we must realize that these activities will not make God love us any more, gain us any favor with God. Any moral self improvement plan is doomed to fail. Yes, we walk, yes we try to obey, yes we run, yes we labor, but we do all this by faith in Christ alone and His cross.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thanks, Michael for your discussion on this point. I agree with you on this issue of sanctification. The Scriptures make it clear that we are to walk in holiness. Paul's epistles are all exhortations to walk in a manner worthy of our calling. J.C Ryle's book on Holiness is the classic work on sanctification and is one that I would commend. I think your point was misunderstood. We do not add a list of man made rules and regulations, but we are to live by the law of God. If we concentrated on reading the law and meditating on it as the Psalmist says, we would know how to live and walk in holiness.


----------



## Stephen

FenderPriest said:


> Just side note: Reading over this post, and considering how my own wife dresses, I just want to offer a public praise to her that she has always dressed modestly. I do not agree with Coram Deo's presentation of biblical modesty. However, as far as Martin's sermon, and the general consensuses is of biblical female modesty, my wife has always been exemplary in her dress. She will even ask me to critique her new cloths as to whether they are modest or not - not merely relying upon her, or her friend's assessment. I know how rare this is among women, even Christian women today. How great God has been to bless me with such a wife! I am entirely undeserving, but my wife has been such a gracious gift from our Father.



 Thanks, brother. Your wife and my wife must have the same fashion designer  He who finds a wife finds a good thing and receives blessing from the LORD. If a woman is godly and seeks to honor Christ, she will know how to dress and will always want to please her husband. If you look at the styles of dress today, both for men and women, it is autrocious. The styles were more modest even ten or fifteen years ago, but as we become a more secularized culture, the styles will become less modest.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Stephen said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, What a way to start a morning...  Where do I start...... (and I have not even had my coffee yet)...
> 
> First, no one is saying we should add our own rules or write a collection of extra biblical talmudic law. Nor is anyone trying to be a Pharisee, one who adds to the laws of God or one who believes they are justified by keeping laws. As for Sanctification, all I will say is, "Be Holy for I am Holy" saith the Lord. We are called to be Holy and to grow in Holiness everyday.
> 
> Now I know that some of you do not accept the interpretation of some of these passages but I do and many others do to. But this is far from Adding to Scripture or being a Pharisee and it certainly is not legalistic.. What it boils down to is interpretation of scriptures and not adding to it scripture.. I see a list in scripture and I am not the first person and I am not the last person to see them. ECF, Reformers, Puritans, and Moderns have all seen the same list... We may disagree to the list but try not to judge the motives of those who hold to a stricter list for modesty.... I do it out of Love for God and to Grow Holier everyday... "Fear God, and Keep His Commandments" is the whole duty of man.
> 
> And Remember "Be Holy, For I am Holy"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It boils down to a strain of legalism Michael. One that Paul so clearly condemns over and over. Sanctification by works is as deadly, perhaps more than justification by works. You are trying to finish what God has started and will complete. You confess that you are justified by faith alone right Michael? Who has taught you or how have you concluded that *you *must now clean your life up and live holy by adhering to certain do's and don'ts . As you continue to do these do's and dont's you will become more and more like Christ. Hence, obedience is the key to godliness/Christlikeness. Paul is crystal clear in Galatians about this problem. He taught them that God was saving by "faith alone," without the law. In fact, as the law had no part of their salvation, it no longer had part in their perfection (ongoing sanctification). Soon after Paul left these Galatians, some came behind him and taught them to continue in the law and customs.
> 
> Galatians 3:1-11, "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? *Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.* Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."
> 
> Those living by the do's and don'ts found in Scripture have placed themselves under the curse of the law, the very thing Christ set us free from! So why do you so willingly place yourself under a system of rules? Why do you not rather live by the faith that saved us? My brother Michael, it can be for no other reason than having believed a lie; *the lie of works-sanctification*.
> *
> "The just shall live by faith."*, Righteous living (sanctification) is obtained the same way righteous standing (justification) is by faith alone. It is not "progressively" obtained that one grows into over 20, 30, or 40 years of obedience to peccadillo rules. Christ is our sanctification Whom we received by faith. Remember Paul saying "I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me"?
> 
> You claim this 'duty of man' is done out of love for God, and to grow holier, yet scripture speaks against the method you are striving to gain the goal by. It is by Grace through faith Michael. Not by any list that someone has concocted. The only thing that can bring us into good standing with God is the finished work of Christ. This is the salvation message we believe by faith. Having believed this, why do you now act as if you are under a performance system after becoming righteous by faith-alone? Will works help you to become righteous (saved) - no! So why do you act as if works will now help you become holier? I fought this disease for years under a works based sanctification preacher. I struggled daily to please an angry God. It made me almost go mad. Then I realized We cannot do anything to make God love us more, or do anything to 'work' ourselves back into God's good favor after we sin. Christ died because we COULDN"T do anything to earn His grace, before or after salvation. If we could be in 'good standing' with God by living right for any period of time then Christ would not have had to die. There is nothing we could do before being saved to become righteous as there is nothing we can do now to become more righteous. As believers, we are the righteousness of Christ already by faith! We live righteously by this same faith, not by righteous works. We are not perfected/completed by our good works, for we are already perfect/complete in Him.
> 
> So, are we not to read God's word, pray, worship, give, serve, etc.? Of course we are. However, as we perform these activities we must realize that these activities will not make God love us any more, gain us any favor with God. Any moral self improvement plan is doomed to fail. Yes, we walk, yes we try to obey, yes we run, yes we labor, but we do all this by faith in Christ alone and His cross.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check your reformed confessions and Scripture, because justification and sanctification are both acts of God's free grace, but sanctification is an infusion of grace by the Spirit (WLC Question 77). Sanctification is God's grace at work in us but it also requires works from us. Sanctification is always progressive and if it is not, then it is an indication that one is not justified by faith. Luther refered to the works in sanctification as the fruits of righteousness. I think you mistated the point when you said that the law has no part in our sanctification. The law certainly is at work in our sanctification. The third use of the law is the means of holiness. We are delivered from the law as a covenant of works, so that we are neither justified or condemned, but we are called to walk in holiness and continually put to death the deeds of the body. You have to make a clear distinction between justification and sanctification.
Click to expand...




Stephen, I have checked them over and over and over again. I am very leary of what is meant by infusion, but that is a whole other topic. Santification is both positional and progressive. Yet both are in Christ alone by grace through faith, not by works obedience as a believers focus. I have heard all the cliche sayings as you have mentioned above and have certainly concluded it is wanting. Anyway you slice it, works sanctification is an impossibility. What does walking in holiness mean to you? Scripture says we walk by faith. Walk in this newness of life procured by Christ. Our life is not supposed to be some rollercaoster ride of failure and victory based upon sinning vs not sinning every day or every hour. It is finished Christ said. And that means more than justification. We have been taught that we become saved by faith in the gospel, but now that we are saved we need to perform well to walk righteously. If at any time we fail to perform well we need to get back on track of good performance in order to get on God's good side again. If we really screw up then it may take several days (or even weeks) of good performance before we 'feel' that God is accepting us again. If we are able to sustain a decent run of good behavior we believe that God is beginning to smile on us again thereby increasing our confidence in approaching and sharing Him. this 'good performance' is a works-based righteousness no different than living under the law. Let me repeat, good performance under the law is no different than 'good performance' under grace. 'Good performance' will not bring us into good standing with God. Good works could not help 1% before salvation and cannot help 1% after salvation. In God's view, a 'successful' five hour period or a five year flawless track record makes no difference to God in relation to our righteousness and acceptability. 

Again, I only ask that you interact with Paul on this point:

Galatians 2:21-3:3, "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain… This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? *Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?"*

There is no other way to understand this verse, becasue it is exactly the same in the original. The Spirit is what saves, then why go back to the flesh/Law/obedience for sanctification? How are we to walk in Christ? The same way we were saved, by faith in the gospel. We are to walk in the faith that God loves us and that *we can do nothing to make Him love us more.* He proved His love for us by offering Himself in our stead on the cross. *We cannot earn His love by being a better Christian, reading our Bibles more, fasting more, etc., for we are fully loved forever. *

Stephen? What works are required of us that you speak of? What do's and dont's are we required to follow that Paul condemns in Col 2? Again I am not speaking of obvious commands of God. But a believer does not need the 10 words in stone constantly presented to him in order for him to not murder or covet. Michael and Bert Mulder have even gone beyond this and followed the traditions of the mishna and have lists of things that only burden others to even read about. This is my biggest gripe with this flavor of legalism. Do you find a roman catholic who prays the rosary foolish? Even when she says she is doing it to please God? Do you find an Amish person a false witness when they scream about not having their picture taken? Or what about the catholic who goes to novena? Is he not praying? Or the one who does not eat meat on wednesdays or fridays during lent? They all say they are doing it to please God, yet you call them heretics, believing a lie. Well I do not care if Ryle, WLC, Calvin, Michael, You, or anyone says that a list of required works has a part in our sanctification, it is against the Gospel. Especially when the list is a bunch of peccadillo things that do not matter at all.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Stephen said:


> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace,
> 
> I have not said much in the past day or so in this thread.. I have even thought that it might not be worth anymore time since I believe we have exhausted everything and I have not been convinced that my list is unbiblical. But I thought I should answer your post with regards to sanctification...
> 
> I have to completely disagree with you. I believe Sanctification is so important that without it no man, woman, or child will see God. You really need to read Holiness by J.C. Ryle... I can really do no justice to the work... It is one of the best books I have ever read....
> 
> In light of the discussions related to sanctification, Ryle’s comments are relevant.
> 
> “It is a subject which is peculiarly seasonable in the present day. Strange doctrines have risen up of late upon the whole subject of sanctification. Some appear to confound it with justification. Others fritter it away to nothing, under the pretence of zeal for free grace, and practically neglect it altogether. Others are so much afraid of ‘works’ being made a part of justification, that they can hardly find any place at all for ‘works’ in their religion."
> 
> In another section, Ryle stressed the cost of living a holy life in the midst of an unholy world. He urged his readers to take up the fight and wage daily war against the world, the flesh, and the devil in whatever arenas these enemies were encountered.
> 
> For Ryle, sanctification and growth in holiness are essential evidences that saving faith has happened and thereby serve to aid in producing assurance in the heart of believers. This assurance is something to be sought after and pursued heartily by the believer.
> 
> Let me aleast outline his books....
> 
> A) It is the invariable result of that vital union with Christ which true faith gives to a Christian. “The faith which has not a sanctifying influence on the character is no better than the faith of devils.”
> 
> B) It is the outcome and inseparable consequence of regeneration. *“Where there is no sanctification there is no regeneration.”*
> 
> C) *It is the only certain evidence of that indwelling of the Holy Spirit *which is essential to salvation. “The seal that the Spirit stamps on Christ’s people is sanctification.”
> 
> D) It is the only sure mark of God’s election. “Elect men and women may be known and distinguished by holy lives.”
> 
> E) It is a reality that will always be seen. *A man’s “sanctification will be something felt and seen*, though he himself may not understand it.”
> 
> F) It is a reality for which every believer is responsible. *“Believers are eminently and peculiarly responsible and under a special obligation to live holy lives.”*
> 
> G) It is a thing which admits of growth and degrees. *“A man may climb from one step to another in holiness and be far more sanctified at one period of his life than another.”*
> 
> H) It depends greatly on a diligent use of scriptural means. *“He will never bless the soul of that man who pretends to be so high and spiritual that he can get on without [the means of grace].”*
> 
> I) It is a thing which does not prevent a man having a great deal of inward spiritual conflict. “A true Christian is one who has not only peace of conscience, but war within.”
> 
> J) It is a thing which cannot justify a man, and yet it pleases God. *“The Bible distinctly teaches that the holy actions of a sanctified man, although imperfect, are pleasing in the sight of God.”*
> 
> K) It is a thing which will be found absolutely necessary as a witness to our character in the great Day of Judgment. *“It will be utterly useless to plead that we believed in Christ unless our faith has had some sanctifying effect and been seen in our lives.”*
> 
> L) It is absolutely necessary in order to train and prepare us for heaven. *“We must be saints before we die if we are to be saints afterwards in glory.”*
> 
> Ryle's Applications are the following
> 
> 1. Let anyone who calls himself a Christian yet has not concern for Sanctification realize his perilous position.
> 2. Test your own salvation by your progress in sanctification.
> 3. Begin sanctification with Christ.
> 4. Work at sanctification continually.
> 5. There is no shame in making much of holiness; holiness = happiness
> 
> 
> Again, Read the Book... I can not stress a more important book.... What I am and Ryle is espousing is not in any form legalism.. Legalism is believing one is justified by works and Pharisaicalism is adding to the law which is a subset of legalism... Remember, Justification is by Faith alone but without works Faith is Dead....
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> It boils down to a strain of legalism Michael. One that Paul so clearly condemns over and over. Sanctification by works is as deadly, perhaps more than justification by works. You are trying to finish what God has started and will complete. You confess that you are justified by faith alone right Michael? Who has taught you or how have you concluded that *you *must now clean your life up and live holy by adhering to certain do's and don'ts . As you continue to do these do's and dont's you will become more and more like Christ. Hence, obedience is the key to godliness/Christlikeness. Paul is crystal clear in Galatians about this problem. He taught them that God was saving by "faith alone," without the law. In fact, as the law had no part of their salvation, it no longer had part in their perfection (ongoing sanctification). Soon after Paul left these Galatians, some came behind him and taught them to continue in the law and customs.
> 
> Galatians 3:1-11, "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? *Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.* Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."
> 
> Those living by the do's and don'ts found in Scripture have placed themselves under the curse of the law, the very thing Christ set us free from! So why do you so willingly place yourself under a system of rules? Why do you not rather live by the faith that saved us? My brother Michael, it can be for no other reason than having believed a lie; *the lie of works-sanctification*.
> *
> "The just shall live by faith."*, Righteous living (sanctification) is obtained the same way righteous standing (justification) is by faith alone. It is not "progressively" obtained that one grows into over 20, 30, or 40 years of obedience to peccadillo rules. Christ is our sanctification Whom we received by faith. Remember Paul saying "I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me"?
> 
> You claim this 'duty of man' is done out of love for God, and to grow holier, yet scripture speaks against the method you are striving to gain the goal by. It is by Grace through faith Michael. Not by any list that someone has concocted. The only thing that can bring us into good standing with God is the finished work of Christ. This is the salvation message we believe by faith. Having believed this, why do you now act as if you are under a performance system after becoming righteous by faith-alone? Will works help you to become righteous (saved) - no! So why do you act as if works will now help you become holier? I fought this disease for years under a works based sanctification preacher. I struggled daily to please an angry God. It made me almost go mad. Then I realized We cannot do anything to make God love us more, or do anything to 'work' ourselves back into God's good favor after we sin. Christ died because we COULDN"T do anything to earn His grace, before or after salvation. If we could be in 'good standing' with God by living right for any period of time then Christ would not have had to die. There is nothing we could do before being saved to become righteous as there is nothing we can do now to become more righteous. As believers, we are the righteousness of Christ already by faith! We live righteously by this same faith, not by righteous works. We are not perfected/completed by our good works, for we are already perfect/complete in Him.
> 
> So, are we not to read God's word, pray, worship, give, serve, etc.? Of course we are. However, as we perform these activities we must realize that these activities will not make God love us any more, gain us any favor with God. Any moral self improvement plan is doomed to fail. Yes, we walk, yes we try to obey, yes we run, yes we labor, but we do all this by faith in Christ alone and His cross.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, Michael for your discussion on this point. I agree with you on this issue of sanctification. The Scriptures make it clear that we are to walk in holiness. Paul's epistles are all exhortations to walk in a manner worthy of our calling. J.C Ryle's book on Holiness is the classic work on sanctification and is one that I would commend. I think your point was misunderstood. We do not add a list of man made rules and regulations, but we are to live by the law of God. If we concentrated on reading the law and meditating on it as the Psalmist says, we would know how to live and walk in holiness.
Click to expand...




The actual book that got me out of the bondage of moralism, aesceticism, neonomianism propounded by you and Michael and many many others in history is *The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification by Walter Marshall.* 

Book Review: The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, by Walter Marshall
(Reviewed by Monergism.com's Nathan Pitchford)

Synopsis: Walter Marshall’s classic seventeenth-century treatment of the doctrine of sanctification lays out in clear and simple terms the means by which a Christian might be enabled to grow in holiness. His basic proposition may seem foreign to many modern believers, who are desperately striving to produce in themselves the fruits of obedience, and so guarantee God’s continuing favor. But it is as scriptural as it is refreshing: sanctification, just like justification, is God’s free gift of grace, and can be apprehended only through the faith which looks to Christ and his perfect work.

Many books have been written on sanctification and holiness, some helpful and some not. But of all the works that attempt to define what holiness is, or teach a Christian what he ought to do, very few devote much space to the question of means – how can I do what I know I should, when my natural inclinations seem so opposed to all that is right? Apart from an understanding of the means by which a Christian may become progressively more holy, a mere description of the nature of holiness will be of no practical help.

That is why Marshall’s work is so vital. Ever since Adam’s fall, mankind has been powerless to perform that which is good. The problem is not merely one of education – we certainly do need to be taught what is good, but we also must be enabled to do it. And, while God tells us what to do in his law, he enables us to do it only through the gospel.

Why is this? Because the gospel unites us by faith to the only One who can truly perform acceptable acts of righteousness; and who can, moreover, produce those same acts in us, from the inside out. The message of the gospel is that we do not become holy by doing, but by not doing – we do not work so that we may become holy, but we become holy by faith, with the result that we begin to work naturally, from our heart. Sadly, many who recognize this truth in the matter of justification forget it when it comes to sanctification. But we are no more able for the latter than we are for the former, apart from the work of Christ in us.

*It may be objected that such a teaching must result in license and lawlessness. But as Marshall demonstrates, it is actually the teaching of a works-based sanctification that issues in lawlessness, for it throws the pursuit of holiness on the abilities of the flesh, which can do nothing according to God’s law. The pursuit of sanctification by the gospel-truth of faith in Christ is the only means that can ever be successful.*

This truth, when apprehended, produces some marvelous results: first, it gives all glory to God alone, for the whole process of salvation – without him, none of it is possible. Second, it serves to alleviate the tormented conscience, and makes the yoke of Christ’s law easy and refreshing indeed – for it turns our eyes to him, when before they were fixed on the impossible weight of the law hanging over our weak resolve. And finally, it actually produces true and acceptable holiness, where years of ardent efforts had left only failure and defeat – for it is only through gospel faith that Christ’s power flows through us because of our vital union with him.

For all these reasons, John Murray speaks of The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification as the most important book on sanctification that has ever written. He may well be right.

Your system is exactly like the rcc, the Gospel brings the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ, but is replaced by the Law which sets down directives for Christian life and warns and threatens the Christian the remaining time on earth. Law, and not the Gospel, becomes God's last and real word for the believer. What a shame. A believrs life deteriorates into an implicit and eventually coarse legalism and moralism. Jesus faced this understanding of an ethically determined concept of sanctification among the Pharisees. Unbelievers can do these works just as good if not better than believers' ie not wearing shorts, not watching drama, caring for the poor, following the 10 commandments, The works of sanctification are, strictly speaking, only those which Christians can do, ie pray, attend the supper, worship the one true God, and lastly, FAITH/ believing in Him alone. This is all I set out to do for my Christian walk. What a relief it has been to rid myself of the rabid moralism taught in my life. God allows us Christians to be plagued by sin and a sense of moral inadequacy to force us to see the impossibility of a *self-generated holiness*. *Our only hope is to look to Christ in whom alone we have a perfect and complete sanctification. "He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30).*


So when I see "Be ye holy becasue I am Holy" glaring me in the face, I do nto turn to works, or lists, or any type of obedience to Law. I only run to thew cross and plead my case. And there and only there can a believer find his sanctification.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Break! Break!

Stephen and Amazing Grace,

I'm splitting this off. I don't like where this discussion has gone and hate that the nature of sanctification is being associated with particular scruples concerning modesty here. Do not debate the nature of sanctification any more in this thread. Wait for my thread that I'm constructing. I'll link to it once I've said my peace.

OK, I'm done. Here is the thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/split-modesty-thread-nature-our-sanctification-30842/#post376880


----------



## SRoper

Listened to the lesson, and I agree with Al Marin's conclusions at least in the context of the West and appropriate dress for church.

I was just thinking the other day about how many take "not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire" to apply specifically to the 1st C. church. If that is the case, then doesn't the pastor have to apply this passage to our contemporary church? Why then do so many pastors refuse to speak on what is and isn't modest and decent today?


----------



## Dieter Schneider

SemperFideles said:


> Dieter Schneider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does Al Martin attract so much opposition? Is Scripture not on his side? I'd prefer argument to abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dieter,
> 
> I'll answer this question. I'm actually surprised you asked it if you read the thread. I'm not aware of anyone who has actually listened to the audio actually criticized what Pastor Martin said. There was a discussion that ensued around what modesty is/isn't, who is responsible for it, what the motivation for it is, etc. I think you need to separate the two discussions because I've read nothing but praise for his actual Sunday School class.
Click to expand...


I have listened to A Martin's message and nothing (incl. silly pictures or comments) ought to detract from the seriousness of what has been said. Sadly, many Western Christians ladies do not seem to share his view, judging by what they wear. 

Perhaps someone needs to put me right on the issue of sanctified humor.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Well for me and others men I have talked to, say that the calf between the knee and ankle are lustful and are magnets to men's eyes....
> 
> The same for the hair... The Song of Solomon talks about how hair is very lustful and erotic.. Again for me and other men I have talk to agree that hair is a magnet for men's eyes and can be a problem for us men.....



In Yemen women have to be sure their elbows are covered. In Japan you need be be sure you feet are covered. Men are silly creatures.


----------



## ModernPuritan?

I think in one sense, Modesty is determined by the culture, but on the other hand, our culture should be defined by Scripture.

1) If i go preaching to a amazon tribe, or a african tribe. I would expect the ladies, to dress modestly according to what their culture says is modest.- and maybe wear a shirt for me. 
Not all guys are attracted to females in the same way. I can say honestly, and before God, that the way the girls dress at BJU, does not cause me any problems lust wise. If im determined to sin in that regard, not even the burkha can stop it. 

2) as far as Scripture goes, I prefer a simple, Love of God and His Law. for instance it says be not Drunk, yet we do not know from scripture at exactly what second a person is drunk. so we could veare on the faulty use of scripture and say no drink at all, or we could ask ourselves- what would God/Paul say is drunkeness? same with clothing in some respects.

a) what is the problem,
b) what is the solution
c) why is the solution given
d) how is it applied
e) who applies it


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Additionally I will not use stand up wall unit in restrooms and always go to the closed door stalls for bodily functions...
> 
> Your biblical convictions aside, you must have some serious body issues. This is a pretty bizarre statement, if you don't mind my saying so.





> Urinals are probably the most common porcelein products on the planet. They're not unusual, and there's nothing unusual about using them (unless Larry "Wide Stance" Craig is around!). They're perfectly acceptable. That's just the way it is in public restrooms.
> 
> At Dodger Stadium (and probably most other major-league ballparks, I imagine), they don't even bother with urinals. They just have long trench-like thingees the men use for answering nature's call...



You guys are too much. I am a school teacher, and while I had a free moment I was reading through this thread. I must say...I erupted in laughter while reading through this thread. This is too much. My kids all looked over at me. I about cried I was laughing so hard. I wish Al Martin would read through this and see where the commentary on his sermon has gone.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Second, if the priest is to uncover the head of the woman suspected of adultery, we must conclude that the priest is meant to be immune to the enticing power of her hair. Now this could be because priests (like hairdressers?) were endowed with a remarkable constancy in the face of the overwhelming allurement of dead keratin, or because it could be reasonably supposed that any man not in the grip of an overmastering lust would be able to limit a sexual response to hair to that found on the top of his wife's scalp.
> __________________



It happened again... I have to stop reading PB at work. This is just too funny. Only to an American would you have to break it down like this.


----------



## hollandmin

those pictures are of the young ladies in the burkas or head scarves, in my opinion seductive, not because what is being worn but because of the expressions of the eyes. It is possible that I'm being a little too critical but hey that's my opinion 

The sermon was great! I actually took some notes and will be using them in a sermon that I am prepairing. God bless the old saints of the church!!

Blessings,


----------



## Olivetan

1 Cor. 8-10 
For the man is not of the woman; but *the woman of the man*: for neither was the man created for the woman; but *the woman for the man*: for this cause ought the woman to have *a sign of authority on her head*, because of the angels. 

I think these facts hasn't changed because these words are not cultural but timeless truth. And also this part of the bible talks about worship order. Woman should cover her head as a symbol. It is a respect towards her husband and God. It does not matter if you see her hair or not. It does not talk about sexual stuff. She may even use a simple cloth for her hair.

If you talk about modesty, again it has no relation to sexual feelings. If man is deceived, he can create thousand scenarios. He can make headcover a "fetish" The problem is not in woman but in man- vice versa.

My modesty definition is simplicity(does not matter how you see it from sexual point) It changes in different cultures. In my culture if i were woman, i would not do make up, not dress for attracting people. I would wear acceptable(according to my culturte) simple clothes, wash my face and go out. If you do it, nobody looks at you on the street. Because it is not attractive, it is ordinary. This may be weird in other countries. So we should look at it in our own culture.

These are my opinions.


----------



## Pergamum

Woohooo...let's hear it for dead keratin!


----------



## Raj

from our fellowship in Nepal.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rajlife/635085596/in/set-72157600508411604/


----------



## Blaktyme

*Let's get real about this.*



BJClark said:


> Coram Deo;
> 
> While I understand that men can lust over all of these things, as a woman, it is a HUGE burden to carry and to know that no matter what I wear, I am being held accountable for being responsible for that man's lust. Where is the man's responsibility for his heart before God in this?
> 
> I know men who lust more over women who are fully covered modestly, thinking about what they can't see and what these women ARE covering, and mentally undressing her fully clothed body..but as a woman, I have no control over a man's lustful thoughts, no matter what I'm wearing.
> 
> Granted I can wear things *I* feel are not going to cause a man to lust, but that doesn't mean he's NOT going to lust anyway, if that is what's in his heart to do.
> 
> Should men and women live in totally seperate societies so that men will never have to deal with their lustful thoughts before God? That to me would be THE ONLY way to prevent men from lusting over women at all.



I'm feeling you on this one sister. Men are not fully owning up to their lust issues. I can go on and on, but will try to keep it simple.

God in His eternal wisdom did not give us a list. Would it have been difficult for Him to say that the skin of a woman's neck down to her knees, neck to her elbows, and her hair... should not be seen by a man not her husband? Sounds crazy doen't it, but some of you wish that He had spelled it out that way.
Have you ever read Leviticus? Does God withhold details from His word? He gave the priests a detailed description of how they should dress. Could he not have told women how to dress as well? Wait a minute...He has: Deuteronomy 22:5; 1 Timothy 2:9,10; 1 Peter 3:3,4.

If you are offended by someone's clothing it is _your _responsibilty to inform that person. It's not a woman's responsibility to ask every man in her church (or on the planet) if they believe she is dressed "modestly". Once she is made aware of her specific offense (or the concern), she has a responsibility to act in love toward the offended person(s).

"Oh but we can't do that brother. I'm not going to tell another woman that her dress is causing me to lust. I'm sure not going to tell my wife that I'm lusting after another woman. Such a thing puts me in an unpleasant and potentially vulnerable situation. She should just know. It's obvious!"

No it's not obvious. Welcome to her world. 

I've had a conversation with a man in my church tell me about how he teaches his daughter to dress modestly, and another man in the church elude to how the young lady _doesn't _dress modestly. Everyone has different standards for different things. If it is not spelled out in the scripture word for word, or in principle, it is a liberty. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the sufficiency of scripture (2 Timothy 3:16,17).

How should we practice our liberties? Read Romans 14.


----------



## AVT

This is very interesting. Indian men (from India) find exposed women's legs as very sexy.
So women wear the Sari. It is a long dress but it exposes women's waist or belly. In the Philippines, it is unbecoming when a woman exposes her stomach or waist in public.
The Chinese and Thais think the woman's neck look sexy when exposed so they design women's blouses to cover the neck, hence the Chinese colar for women.

There's no end to Cultural definition of what is seductive. If it is not the woman's legs , it is her eyes, if not her eyes, it is her slim waist. The fallen mind will lust anyway. Muslim men will imagine what's underneath the veil and that long dress that cover women. heey girls, where can we go? Being female will seduce men anyway thin or fat!

To be modest is to simply not provoke men to lust. How we dress speaks of who we are.
Make the skirts a little longer and cover more flesh. Also make one's lifestyle modest-avoid the appearance of evil in all our actions and words. Modesty also is defined where you are, if you are in your own bathroom---what's the rule? If I am with my husband alone, well, he doesn't care if I have a dress on or not. Help, I just want to be normal and appropriate at any time and at any place. I want to glorify God in my body! The only sure hope for man's mind to become pure is when the body is resurrected---by then , there will be no more lust.

That's all folks!


----------



## calgal

Arlene Truax said:


> This is very interesting. Indian men (from India) find exposed women's legs as very sexy.
> So women wear the Sari. It is a long dress but it exposes women's waist or belly. In the Philippines, it is unbecoming when a woman exposes her stomach or waist in public.
> The Chinese and Thais think the woman's neck look sexy when exposed so they design women's blouses to cover the neck, hence the Chinese colar for women.
> 
> There's no end to Cultural definition of what is seductive. If it is not the woman's legs , it is her eyes, if not her eyes, it is her slim waist. The fallen mind will lust anyway. Muslim men will imagine what's underneath the veil and that long dress that cover women. heey girls, where can we go? Being female will seduce men anyway thin or fat!
> 
> To be modest is to simply not provoke men to lust. How we dress speaks of who we are.
> Make the skirts a little longer and cover more flesh. Also make one's lifestyle modest-avoid the appearance of evil in all our actions and words. Modesty also is defined where you are, if you are in your own bathroom---what's the rule? If I am with my husband alone, well, he doesn't care if I have a dress on or not. Help, I just want to be normal and appropriate at any time and at any place. I want to glorify God in my body! The only sure hope for man's mind to become pure is when the body is resurrected---by then , there will be no more lust.
> 
> That's all folks!



i agree with you. we should dress as ladies (but not get so focused on what we wear that clothing becomes an idol). It helps to get input from the menfolk but we need to think before we walk out of the house. The men ALSO should be mature enough to control themselves and not get consumed with lust for anyone other than their wife.


----------

