"Sola Scriptura is not really valued by the movers and shakers in the [IFB] movement"

[Mike Durning] So wouldn’t implementing a rule cut us off from the information about where they really were in their walk with God? That’s why it was so hard at Christian High School and college. You couldn’t tell who was on God’s side and who was on the Devil’s because all the players wore the same uniform.

Help me out here, not having come from that background as a Christian. And I may not be able to ask this exactly how I mean it, so please bear with me.

Are you saying that it would have been better if those schools had no dress code, because then you WOULD have been able to tell who was on whose side? Even that seems to imply that those on God’s side would have dressed like “A”, and those not would have dressed like “B”, and thus you introduce the bias of what someone on God’s side would dress like? Your statement seems to say that it would be possible to discern the believer from the non-believer based on this distinction, or at least as one parameter (sticking to this particular discussion), and that the dress code made that process of identification more difficult.

I agree, though, in your context as to not implementing a rule, and yet is the reason why we would not do so is that we might be able to tell who is who based on how they dress? Dress like “this” and you are “here” in your walk with God. Dress like “that” and you are “here”. Then again, maybe you’ve simply stated a reality that is hard to admit or accept.

I agree that our emphasis should be on the heart. But the fact is how much we value the Scriptures will be evident in our testimony, and our testimony to others is based on how we conduct ourselves, which includes our appearance. The fruits of the Spirit include love, meekness, and self-control, all of which will influence how we dress and behave. If I love my brothers and sisters in Christ, I will not act or dress in a way that might cause them to stumble or even be uncomfortable in my presence. Moderation in our appearance is one of those areas where we are often led to believe that faith without works is perfectly fine. I can do whatever I want, because “God sees my heart” and na-na-na-na-na-na. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-taunt013.gif

I don’t think so.

You couldn’t tell who was on God’s side and who was on the Devil’s because all the players wore the same uniform.

People reveal their true nature eventually… even those who think they deserve an Oscar for their portrayal of a Godly Christian haven’t fooled anyone that didn’t want to be fooled.

Also, I would like to point out that I was discussing ‘dress codes’ specifically for church leadership and staff as a means of modeling good examples to the flock.

To be clear- I’m not for mandating a particular application, such as ‘no pants allowed’, but I think you’d mandate that the private parts of attending church members be adequately covered, and no matter how you slice it, that’s still a dress code. There are some behaviors, such as obscene and sexually explicit language, that aren’t tolerated in a church because it is supposed to be ‘family friendly’. Some rules of conduct should be adopted and observed whether the folks are sincere Christians or not.

…teaching a Bible principle as Scripture honors sola scriptura. Enforcing a rule based on an application of Scripture that you made and teaching that obedience to that application is God’s law or is a spiritual deed dishonors sola scriptura.

On that we agree.

This discussion has gone way off topic.

Maybe a little bit, but I don’t believe we can completely divorce doctrine from conduct under the guise of sola scriptura. You gave examples of dress standards, church discipline, etc… as ways that church leadership reveals whether or not they value Scripture over tradition and peer pressure. I’m exploring the ways we value Scripture in our daily conduct and the choices we make.

I also meant to say that I agree with Bro. Charlie’s point-

To create a new rule or principle not found in Scripture is to overstep one’s authority, to make oneself a master rather than a servant of the Scripture. Now, the Protestants did believe in using syllogistic reasoning to apply Scriptural principles to specific cases, but they did NOT approve (in theory) of extrapolating new general principles. So, a confessional Protestant could, for instance, declare a particular movie wicked. He could not pass a prohibition against movies in general, especially not under the guise of “wisdom” or “safety.”

Ministerial authority does not apply only to prohibitions. The church also cannot add new Christian duties. Enforced feasts, fasts, and clerical garments were hot issues in the Reformation. Today, any pastor that tells his people they “must” attend church services not on the Lord’s Day or “must” employ a certain devotional scheme or “must” wear a certain kind of attire to church is overstepping his authority as minister.

Hypothetical- a local pastor’s wife dresses like she charges by the hour. Does that not tell you something about her character, and also the character of her husband? It isn’t just because of the apparel itself, but what it reveals about the person who chose to purchase that item, put it on, look in a mirror, and say “I make this look good.” What we do reveals who we are. Man does look on the outward appearance. Let’s get over that already and move on.

I don’t know where that has ever been a problem in any Christian circle.
I’m not against dress standards and dressing modestly for goodness sake, my point is that in the IFB, rules about clothes are elevated as doctrine and what a woman wears to bed at night is sometimes asked by pastors interviewing potential staff or missionary candidates.

[WilliamD]

Hypothetical- a local pastor’s wife dresses like she charges by the hour. Does that not tell you something about her character, and also the character of her husband? It isn’t just because of the apparel itself, but what it reveals about the person who chose to purchase that item, put it on, look in a mirror, and say “I make this look good.” What we do reveals who we are. Man does look on the outward appearance. Let’s get over that already and move on.

I don’t know where that has ever been a problem in any Christian circle.
I’m not against dress standards and dressing modestly for goodness sake, my point is that in the IFB, rules about clothes are elevated as doctrine and what a woman wears to bed at night is sometimes asked by pastors interviewing potential staff or missionary candidates.

Now that’s just plain freaky. If that’s been your IFB experience, then I can understand your frustration. I find it bizarre that any normal thinking person would tolerate that kind of abuse of authority and Scripture after reasonable attempts to address the problem have been met with stubborn rejection.

But I have known female church staff/teachers that totter around in low-cut blouses, tight skirts/pants and stilettos- a spring breeze would blow them over. In my mind that equals a lack of good sense and not just a lack of spiritual discernment.

Dear friends,

Severe weather – including a nearby tornado, I’m told – took out our power. So let me quickly reply/comment while my laptop battery holds out. I refuse to do SI on my cell phone. Too small.

[Charlie] On the other hand, the Protestant Reformers, particularly on the Calvinist side, emphasized that the church has only ministerial authority over faith and morals. As faithful servants of Christ, we may declare only what he has declared, no less and no more. To create a new rule or principle not found in Scripture is to overstep one’s authority, to make oneself a master rather than a servant of the Scripture. Now, the Protestants did believe in using syllogistic reasoning to apply Scriptural principles to specific cases, but they did NOT approve (in theory) of extrapolating new general principles. So, a confessional Protestant could, for instance, declare a particular movie wicked. He could not pass a prohibition against movies in general, especially not under the guise of “wisdom” or “safety.”

Ministerial authority does not apply only to prohibitions. The church also cannot add new Christian duties. Enforced feasts, fasts, and clerical garments were hot issues in the Reformation. Today, any pastor that tells his people they “must” attend church services not on the Lord’s Day or “must” employ a certain devotional scheme or “must” wear a certain kind of attire to church is overstepping his authority as minister.

Thanks, Charlie. This is why I say that there are just a few Fundies who are no different than Roman Catholics at the core level.

[ChrisS] Are you saying that it would have been better if those schools had no dress code, because then you WOULD have been able to tell who was on whose side? Even that seems to imply that those on God’s side would have dressed like “A”, and those not would have dressed like “B”, and thus you introduce the bias of what someone on God’s side would dress like? Your statement seems to say that it would be possible to discern the believer from the non-believer based on this distinction, or at least as one parameter (sticking to this particular discussion), and that the dress code made that process of identification more difficult.

I was being a little tongue-in-cheek there. Of course, I don’t think of any normal styles as being inherently Satanic or Godly, though a few (like Bikinis in the presence of men, or on men, for that matter, may be ;) ). I guess my point is that if the goal of these rules was to produce godliness or produce a godly reputation, they fail utterly in the first and generally in the 2nd.

My thought is that a person may betray vanity in their dress that would otherwise be masked by a dress code. Or impure desires. Or a host of other defects.

I don’t know that schools and churches that used such codes would have been better without dress codes, but they would be better without the assumptions as to sanctification that are made about those dress codes in some quarters.

[Susan R] Now that’s just plain freaky. If that’s been your IFB experience, then I can understand your frustration. I find it bizarre that any normal thinking person would tolerate that kind of abuse of authority and Scripture after reasonable attempts to address the problem have been met with stubborn rejection.

Susan, that is exactly William’s and my experience (our histories have much in common). And, once again, though nobody at SI believes me, they are plentiful among those who use the name Fundamentalist.

And that is an abandonment of sola scriptura, putting, as our friend Charlie might say, the authority of the magisterium on par with the true authority we have vested in us from God’s Word.*

*Note how I desperately tried to claw my way back to something to do with the OP.

[Mike Durning]
*Note how I desperately tried to claw my way back to something to do with the OP.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-score009.gif

[Mike Durning]…Relating all this to the thread, I would say this: teaching a Bible principle as Scripture honors sola scriptura. Enforcing a rule based on an application of Scripture that you made and teaching that obedience to that application is God’s law or is a spiritual deed dishonors sola scriptura.

Interesting.

It was to Corinth that Paul, under inspiration, gave the practical application of the limitations of Acts 15 (Council at Jerusalem). Corinth abode under the temple to Aphrodite and was wholly given to her worship. Google “Aphrodite” and practically every site will provide a list of sacred identifiers for her—scallop shell; swans; myrtle; etc. These identifications were known to Corinthians.

Suppose that the elder of Corinth Independent, Fundamental, never-varying-a-bit Baptist Church was presented with young ladies in his youth group, or singing in the choir, or wherever, who chose in that time and culture to bejewel themselves with scallop shell earrings and necklaces while wearing a T-shirt that depicted a couple of kissing swans, not as a matter of rebellion, but because they “liked the look.” This elder has read Paul’s directives in I Cor. 10:20-21; 28 as well as Luke’s inspired writings of Acts 15 and 21.

Would I be reading you correctly in stating that if he, as an ordained elder gifted by the Holy Spirit for the position he retains and for the health of the assembly, were to rebuke them on their dress and jewelry, he would be dishonoring the concept of sola scriptura?

[Lee] Would I be reading you correctly in stating that if he, as an ordained elder gifted by the Holy Spirit for the position he retains and for the health of the assembly, were to rebuke them on their dress and jewelry, he would be dishonoring the concept of sola scriptura?

Well stated, Lee. Mike overstepped here.

[Mike Durning]…Relating all this to the thread, I would say this: teaching a Bible principle as Scripture honors sola scriptura. Enforcing a rule based on an application of Scripture that you made and teaching that obedience to that application is God’s law or is a spiritual deed dishonors sola scriptura.

Teaching that obedience to that application is God’s law does dishonour sola Scriptura. To do so is to elevate our application to an authority which God alone can give.

Teaching that obedience to an application is a spiritual deed does not necessarily do so.

I’m going to a wedding tomorrow. If the bride wears a kilt, she would be violating a Scriptural principle, and it wouldn’t be spiritual. I would gladly tell her so if she asked me about it, and it wouldn’t violate sola Scriptura, even though it is an application. Furthermore, I would not permit a wedding in our church where the bride wore a kilt. That’s only an application, but I would still make a rule on it. I wouldn’t say it was God’s law, I would say it is the way we believe we should obey God’s law in this place.

If a bride wants to wear a tartan skirt, even that is dubious. Is she trying to look like she is wearing a kilt? Everyone knows the difference. But it would be blurring the distinction, and I would strongly advise against it. I would probably not permit it for a wedding in our church. If you’ve got a bride who is trying to look like a groom, you’ve got a big, big problem.

Across the water, if a bride wanted to wear a tartan skirt for her wedding, I’d just think it was a little odd (well, maybe a lot odd :)). Here, it’s beyond odd — something is wrong.

[JG]
I’m going to a wedding tomorrow. If the bride wears a kilt, she would be violating a Scriptural principle, and it wouldn’t be spiritual. I would gladly tell her so if she asked me about it, and it wouldn’t violate sola Scriptura, even though it is an application. Furthermore, I would not permit a wedding in our church where the bride wore a kilt. That’s only an application, but I would still make a rule on it. I wouldn’t say it was God’s law, I would say it is the way we believe we should obey God’s law in this place.

If a bride wants to wear a tartan skirt, even that is dubious. Is she trying to look like she is wearing a kilt? Everyone knows the difference. But it would be blurring the distinction, and I would strongly advise against it. I would probably not permit it for a wedding in our church. If you’ve got a bride who is trying to look like a groom, you’ve got a big, big problem.

Across the water, if a bride wanted to wear a tartan skirt for her wedding, I’d just think it was a little odd (well, maybe a lot odd :)). Here, it’s beyond odd — something is wrong.

Call me dumb, but you lost me on the whole kilt thing. But hey, I’m still struggling about the bride having to wear white. :~

Don’t they? :)

The groom, his attendants, and male family members always wear a kilt to the wedding. Always. Many of the male guests do, too. For a bride to wear a kilt would be like a bride in America wearing a tuxedo to the wedding.

More cleanup posting on low power.

Pray for us. No AC power till tonight at 9:30 means no well, no water.

[Lee] Interesting.

It was to Corinth that Paul, under inspiration, gave the practical application of the limitations of Acts 15 (Council at Jerusalem). Corinth abode under the temple to Aphrodite and was wholly given to her worship. Google “Aphrodite” and practically every site will provide a list of sacred identifiers for her—scallop shell; swans; myrtle; etc. These identifications were known to Corinthians.

Suppose that the elder of Corinth Independent, Fundamental, never-varying-a-bit Baptist Church was presented with young ladies in his youth group, or singing in the choir, or wherever, who chose in that time and culture to bejewel themselves with scallop shell earrings and necklaces while wearing a T-shirt that depicted a couple of kissing swans, not as a matter of rebellion, but because they “liked the look.” This elder has read Paul’s directives in I Cor. 10:20-21; 28 as well as Luke’s inspired writings of Acts 15 and 21.

Would I be reading you correctly in stating that if he, as an ordained elder gifted by the Holy Spirit for the position he retains and for the health of the assembly, were to rebuke them on their dress and jewelry, he would be dishonoring the concept of sola scriptura?

Great comments, Lee.
First, I think there is a cultural difference here. The message communicated by the style you define within Corinthian culture would have been clear. I’m not sure it would have been possible for someone in that culture to make that choice of dress without intending to communicate that message. The message communicated by a scantily clad woman is a different message. It may not be intended to communicate anything, except thoughtlessly following the styles of the day, without regard for Biblical value. I think a more apt comparison to the pagan dress in Corinth would be a young lady who comes to church wearing a T-shirt that says “I love heroin” or “Boy Toy”.

Secondly, there is a difference of criticality. Participation in pagan rites, worship, and even identification is clearly forbidden in a variety of ways in the Epistles (not to mention the Pentateuch and prophets). Choosing to dress in a way that glorifies a false deity is somewhat more serious than mindlessly following the styles of the day without consideration for the lust problem engendered in others.

Thirdly, there is a difference of technique here that I think is paramount. Thundering forth a condemnation from the pulpit that every woman who wears a _____________ [insert clothing item here] is a “harlot under God’s judgment” would be entirely different than lovingly taking the person aside and leading them through the principles that their clothing is probably violating. The second promotes loyalty to God’s Word. The first may emphasize the authority of the leader but not a Scriptural basis from which it is derived. And that takes sola scriptura lightly.

[JG] Teaching that obedience to that application is God’s law does dishonour sola Scriptura. To do so is to elevate our application to an authority which God alone can give.

Teaching that obedience to an application is a spiritual deed does not necessarily do so.

OK, I’ll buy that as a possible overstatement or imprecision on my part. But give me some examples, JG. To me, the gist is that performance of a deed “in order to be spiritual” because the leader told me so without reference to His authority derived from Scripture is a departure from sola scriptura.

William, since you expressed a fear that this thread was getting off topic, perhaps you could post a few other ways in which you believe sola scripura is not honored among the leaders and shakers of Fundamentalism. That might help us take the thread in other directions than the endless discussion of how we apply standards.

The same (IFB) people who taught me that “the Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice” also taught me that it was sinful for a man to wear a beard…and that it was wrong to move the Sunday evening service from 7:30 to 6:30…and that music from idol-worshipping Africans was wicked but music from idol-worshipping Europeans was divine…

I’m not quite sure that “sole” means what some people think it does.