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

[Mike Durning] 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.

You’ve got the distinction. If it’s “spiritual because the leader told me so,” that’s rubbish. If it’s “spiritual because we are to forsake the corruption that is in the world”, nor will we tempt the young men in our church to impure thoughts, and so we won’t wear clothing with the Playboy bunny on it in our services, that’s an application to be taught privately and might even be a rule, but it’s flowing directly out of Biblical principles.

The key question here is whether the application is tied to Scriptural principles, or tied to human authority. The former may or may not be a good application, it may come out of imperfect exegesis or flawed application, but it isn’t a matter of wrong authority, it’s a matter of working towards good exegesis/application. The latter, however, is an authority problem.

Two pitfalls, in other words. One is to claim Scripture’s authority for our applications. The second is to claim our applications are “spiritual” without giving any Scriptural basis for them.

But those pitfalls don’t and shouldn’t keep us from teaching application, and even applying application rules to corporate worship as needed. Otherwise, Hebrews 13:17 becomes meaningless. Just because some have abused it doesn’t invalidate it.

At least, that’s how I see it.

[Mike Durning]…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”.

But the scallop shell, swan, etc., is not identified in Scripture, is not inherently immoral, and its identification as part of the prevalent idolatry is necessarily extra-biblical. Yet we both seem to agree that properly rebuking in this matter is not an affront on sola scriptura.

We’re now 2000 years down the road. But societies haven’t changed that much. Though no one worships Aphrodite any more, every society in every culture that is not Christian or Jewish is equally idolatrous with all the accouterments of idolatry present. We just don’t have the luxury of archaeologists posting research papers on the internet identifying every society’s particular icons at the time. But, of course, Corinth didn’t either—somebody made that determination for them at that time. Just because they are not historically recognized does not mean they do not exist.

Now, if an ordained elder, gifted by the Holy Spirit for the position he retains and for the health of the assembly utilizes the same truth of Scripture in discerning that X is as equally idolatrous as were the scallop shell and swan, and then holds the assembly accountable to it, is he now an affront on sola scriptura?

As per the concept of “thoughtlessly following the styles of the day, ” I’m not really sure how that applies. Just because I don’t “think” it is communicating, or don’t intend for it to communicate, is completely irrelevant. It is communicating a message (whether for idolatry or immorality). So the elder, again, discerning from the pages of Scripture, though not specifically spelled out in Scripture (thou shalt not wear a bikini to the youth outing) that the dress in question is communicating a message of immorality or idolatry, educates said individual and then holds that individual accountable. Is that now beyond the affirmation of sola scriptura?

I’m really needing a little help knowing where you’re coming from when you have a minute.

Certainly don’t envy your position without electric, water, etc. Trust is will be worked out speedily.

[Lee]
Now, if an ordained elder, gifted by the Holy Spirit for the position he retains and for the health of the assembly utilizes the same truth of Scripture in discerning that X is as equally idolatrous as were the scallop shell and swan, and then holds the assembly accountable to it, is he now an affront on sola scriptura?

That depends. If what he has “discerned” is not obvious to the members (i.e., it’s not a clear negative cultural symbol like the Playboy bunny, or kilts on women in Scotland), and he has jumped to a lot of conclusions to make a connection between some symbol and something wicked or idolatrous, and he cannot convince the members of actuality of the connection he sees, then yes, by demanding that the assembly be accountable to it, he is in fact making his conclusions equal with scripture, and thereby doing damage to sola scriptura.

The final step in all this, determining that a symbol or something like it represents something sinful or worldly, is not always so obvious, and this step outside of scripture must be made carefully. Bikinis are pretty obvious, since they are immodest. Certain items of clothing that are otherwise modest might not be. For example, lets say this elder ministers in an area with a lot of businessmen and most of these businessmen wear suits and display a lot of greed and avarice in their business dealings (a big form of idolatry in our time), and normal “honest” guys generally do not wear suits, though a few do. Would he be able to declare suits sinful in his area and hold his members to it? Maybe, but only if he can convince them that the symbol is in fact unambiguous or at least a big negative testimony, and really points only (or mostly) to greed. If it’s unclear, he will have to take the time (over weeks, months, years) to make his argument and lovingly convince the membership of the truth of what he is saying. And even when he does this, he will have to give new members moving to the area time to come around, and carefully admonish them rather than just make a bald requirement.

Congregations wanting to do what God requires will be easy to convince on the scriptural principles. However, the parts outside of scripture will generally result in differences in application, and something would have to be as clear as your swans and idolatry example (or JG’s example of kilts in Scotland) to be as easy to apply as you are saying. Otherwise the pastor must tread very carefully and carefully convince the members why they should hold his conviction.

A lot of how this type of thing should be done will come down to how the elder approaches it. “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”

[dcbii]…The final step in all this, determining that a symbol or something like it represents something sinful or worldly, is not always so obvious, and this step outside of scripture must be made carefully. …If it’s unclear, he will have to take the time (over weeks, months, years) to make his argument and lovingly convince the membership of the truth of what he is saying. And even when he does this, he will have to give new members moving to the area time to come around, and carefully admonish them rather than just make a bald requirement.

Congregations wanting to do what God requires will be easy to convince on the scriptural principles. However, the parts outside of scripture will generally result in differences in application, and something would have to be as clear as your swans and idolatry example (or JG’s example of kilts in Scotland) to be as easy to apply as you are saying. Otherwise the pastor must tread very carefully and carefully convince the members why they should hold his conviction.

A lot of how this type of thing should be done will come down to how the elder approaches it. “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”

If I read you correctly we’re arguing about the wrong issue. Sola Scriptura has less to do with it than does methodology in education and accountability. I can live with that. However, if that is the case it makes the premise of this thread moot. It is not that the movers and shakers are callous with sola scriptura, it is that they are really lousy educators/communicators. That is a subject for a different thread.

[Lee]
If I read you correctly we’re arguing about the wrong issue. Sola Scriptura has less to do with it than does methodology in education and accountability. I can live with that. However, if that is the case it makes the premise of this thread moot. It is not that the movers and shakers are callous with sola scriptura, it is that they are really lousy educators/communicators. That is a subject for a different thread.

You are right to an extent. My previous post went a little further down the trail into yours and JG’s clarification of what Mike Durning wrote. There are different ways to use or abuse scriptural authority, as you, JG, and Mike have been discussing. Declaring a personal conviction to be equal to scripture abuses sola scriptura. On that point, I agree with Mike. Making a legitimate application can be done when scripture isn’t clear without abusing the scriptures if it’s done carefully. Many such applications are not done carefully, and that’s a separate problem, though it is related. But “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (which many careless applications do, knowingly or unknowingly) does indeed show a lack of valuing sola scriptura, and should always be avoided, even when applications are preached. Unfortunately, it’s been way too common in many fundamental churches, not just IFB churches.

I most certainly do, says a man with a green Clergy kilt in his closet and a blue Clergy tie on his tie rack.

[JG] 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.

[dcbii]

[Lee]
If I read you correctly we’re arguing about the wrong issue. Sola Scriptura has less to do with it than does methodology in education and accountability. I can live with that. However, if that is the case it makes the premise of this thread moot. It is not that the movers and shakers are callous with sola scriptura, it is that they are really lousy educators/communicators. That is a subject for a different thread.

You are right to an extent. My previous post went a little further down the trail into yours and JG’s clarification of what Mike Durning wrote. There are different ways to use or abuse scriptural authority, as you, JG, and Mike have been discussing. Declaring a personal conviction to be equal to scripture abuses sola scriptura. On that point, I agree with Mike. Making a legitimate application can be done when scripture isn’t clear without abusing the scriptures if it’s done carefully. Many such applications are not done carefully, and that’s a separate problem, though it is related. But “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (which many careless applications do, knowingly or unknowingly) does indeed show a lack of valuing sola scriptura, and should always be avoided, even when applications are preached. Unfortunately, it’s been way too common in many fundamental churches, not just IFB churches.

Thanks, dcbii. You said that well. I thought of another way to express it: how I explain such things must lift up Scripture rather than the leader’s authority or the movement’s tradition. Otherwise, I have compromised sola scriptura.

[Mike Durning]…I thought of another way to express it: how I explain such things must lift up Scripture rather than the leader’s authority or the movement’s tradition. Otherwise, I have compromised sola scriptura.

Assuming you are absolutely correct you have to admit that your statement is a very long step removed from the premise of this thread, that “Sola Scriptura is not really valued by the movers and shakers in the [IFB] movement.” One is a statement of purpose, the other a statement of practice, of which dcbii is willing to accommodate as either “knowingly or unknowingly” (i.e., a lack of education more than a lack of integrity). A VERY long step indeed.

[Lee]

[Mike Durning]…I thought of another way to express it: how I explain such things must lift up Scripture rather than the leader’s authority or the movement’s tradition. Otherwise, I have compromised sola scriptura.

Assuming you are absolutely correct you have to admit that your statement is a very long step removed from the premise of this thread, that “Sola Scriptura is not really valued by the movers and shakers in the [IFB] movement.” One is a statement of purpose, the other a statement of practice, of which dcbii is willing to accommodate as either “knowingly or unknowingly” (i.e., a lack of education more than a lack of integrity). A VERY long step indeed.

Those who shout loudest their absolute loyalty to the Word of God ought to be careful about all lesser loyalties that might conflict.

But perhaps you should make that point to William D and let him answer it. I’m still hoping he has other ways in which sola scriptura is ignored that he has not explained yet.