Man do I miss those days of Braemer, Beaumont & Brennan on here....

[Tarheel Baptist]

Well, since he left NY, he was more of an evangelical than a fundamentalist.  He was drifting down the compromise road, and I'm not at all surprised.

First you get caught in an affair, and the next thing you know, you're compromising your theological standards and spinning rock and/or roll records on drive-time radio.

Heh... but there is a lot of truth here.

Usually, music standards slide or are just not that important anymore; then, the doctrines begin to slide as well. 

But being new evangelical isn't connected with adultery.

What? "Music standards slide then doctrine begins to slide as well?" What a broad brushing statemtent.  Remember the key word here is "standards" which is not a biblical term and is so subjective in the IFB world. My preferences become the worlds standards!

I agree that it is broad brushing -- I'm just commenting on a pattern I've seen repeat over and over again: (1) The music begins to change, usually in the special music: Singers and musicians are unhappy just singing/playing from the hymnal, so they go elsewhere to find music. It may have a worldly sound, which is toned down so as not to offend.  But the music gets "edgier" and more of a contemporary sound, even while preaching against contemporary music.  (2) The drift continues and some people start to leave  (3) the church begins to relax the standards they have preached against for a long time (4) The church removes "Baptist" from their name  (5) All the fundamental doctrines begin to slide

If you don't like standards, we could substitute the Biblical word "doctrine".

I've seen repeatedly that the doctrine concerning things "that aren't that critical" (music, dress) begins to change, and then more and more things begin to fall into the "not that critical" or "non-essentials" list.

Standards as historically practiced by IFB churches are not Biblical doctrine. They are more often than not methods and personal preference. There are many, many, many more evangelical churches that believe, preach and practice THE actual fundamentals of the faith than there are IFB churches that practice extra biblical standards in the name of doctrine.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Well, since he left NY, he was more of an evangelical than a fundamentalist.  He was drifting down the compromise road, and I'm not at all surprised.

First you get caught in an affair, and the next thing you know, you're compromising your theological standards and spinning rock and/or roll records on drive-time radio.

Heh... but there is a lot of truth here.

Usually, music standards slide or are just not that important anymore; then, the doctrines begin to slide as well. 

But being new evangelical isn't connected with adultery.

What? "Music standards slide then doctrine begins to slide as well?" What a broad brushing statemtent.  Remember the key word here is "standards" which is not a biblical term and is so subjective in the IFB world. My preferences become the worlds standards!

I agree that it is broad brushing -- I'm just commenting on a pattern I've seen repeat over and over again: (1) The music begins to change, usually in the special music: Singers and musicians are unhappy just singing/playing from the hymnal, so they go elsewhere to find music. It may have a worldly sound, which is toned down so as not to offend.  But the music gets "edgier" and more of a contemporary sound, even while preaching against contemporary music.  (2) The drift continues and some people start to leave  (3) the church begins to relax the standards they have preached against for a long time (4) The church removes "Baptist" from their name  (5) All the fundamental doctrines begin to slide

If you don't like standards, we could substitute the Biblical word "doctrine".

I've seen repeatedly that the doctrine concerning things "that aren't that critical" (music, dress) begins to change, and then more and more things begin to fall into the "not that critical" or "non-essentials" list.

Standards as historically practiced by IFB churches are not Biblical doctrine. They are more often than not methods and personal preference. There are many, many, many more evangelical churches that believe, preach and practice THE actual fundamentals of the faith than there are IFB churches that practice extra biblical standards in the name of doctrine.

I haven't been posting for a while.

The topic of standards is one I have thought about. A lot. Does the Bible teach "standards?". Depends on how you're using the word. The actual dictionary definition, or rather one of them, is "A rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment". Doctrine. "A particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated".

So, standards are simply applied doctrine. Doctrine is meaningless without a practical application.

For instance. OT. Thou shalt not committ adultery. NT. Flee fornication. That's doctrine. Applied. Any sexual contact between a man and a woman that are not wedded in matrimony is sinful and off limits for the Christian. That's a standard of behaviour, in particular moral behaviour.

Now, the question is, can an application of doctrine be applied to other matters? Music? Clothing? Certainly. Let's start simply. Clothing. More than public nudity. That must be clearly wrong, and to the person it isn't clear to, there's no point having a logical discussion about anything really except salvation. Ok, if it's not nudity, what is the standard (applied doctrine) of clothing? Here's where the disagreement actually starts. What is the applied doctrine of clothing? Is there a minimum? So, saying "there are no standards in the Bible" is foolish.

The question really is, what standard (applied doctrine) does the Bible teach as a minimum guideline for believers?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Well, since he left NY, he was more of an evangelical than a fundamentalist.  He was drifting down the compromise road, and I'm not at all surprised.

First you get caught in an affair, and the next thing you know, you're compromising your theological standards and spinning rock and/or roll records on drive-time radio.

Heh... but there is a lot of truth here.

Usually, music standards slide or are just not that important anymore; then, the doctrines begin to slide as well. 

But being new evangelical isn't connected with adultery.

What? "Music standards slide then doctrine begins to slide as well?" What a broad brushing statemtent.  Remember the key word here is "standards" which is not a biblical term and is so subjective in the IFB world. My preferences become the worlds standards!

I agree that it is broad brushing -- I'm just commenting on a pattern I've seen repeat over and over again: (1) The music begins to change, usually in the special music: Singers and musicians are unhappy just singing/playing from the hymnal, so they go elsewhere to find music. It may have a worldly sound, which is toned down so as not to offend.  But the music gets "edgier" and more of a contemporary sound, even while preaching against contemporary music.  (2) The drift continues and some people start to leave  (3) the church begins to relax the standards they have preached against for a long time (4) The church removes "Baptist" from their name  (5) All the fundamental doctrines begin to slide

If you don't like standards, we could substitute the Biblical word "doctrine".

I've seen repeatedly that the doctrine concerning things "that aren't that critical" (music, dress) begins to change, and then more and more things begin to fall into the "not that critical" or "non-essentials" list.

Standards as historically practiced by IFB churches are not Biblical doctrine. They are more often than not methods and personal preference. There are many, many, many more evangelical churches that believe, preach and practice THE actual fundamentals of the faith than there are IFB churches that practice extra biblical standards in the name of doctrine.

I haven't been posting for a while.

The topic of standards is one I have thought about. A lot. Does the Bible teach "standards?". Depends on how you're using the word. The actual dictionary definition, or rather one of them, is "A rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment". Doctrine. "A particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated".

So, standards are simply applied doctrine. Doctrine is meaningless without a practical application.

For instance. OT. Thou shalt not committ adultery. NT. Flee fornication. That's doctrine. Applied. Any sexual contact between a man and a woman that are not wedded in matrimony is sinful and off limits for the Christian. That's a standard of behaviour, in particular moral behaviour.

Now, the question is, can an application of doctrine be applied to other matters? Music? Clothing? Certainly. Let's start simply. Clothing. More than public nudity. That must be clearly wrong, and to the person it isn't clear to, there's no point having a logical discussion about anything really except salvation. Ok, if it's not nudity, what is the standard (applied doctrine) of clothing? Here's where the disagreement actually starts. What is the applied doctrine of clothing? Is there a minimum? So, saying "there are no standards in the Bible" is foolish.

The question really is, what standard (applied doctrine) does the Bible teach as a minimum guideline for believers?

Practically speaking, doctrine is (in the church context) Biblical truth...as opposed to false doctrine.
Examples are, the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, blood atonement....

Standards, in the same context, are/have been an expected code of conduct, dress and activities.
Examples are no pants on women, attending movies, musical preference, hairstyles...

As the IFB world of the past has practiced such, one is far removed from the other.

 

[Walt]

Well, since he left NY, he was more of an evangelical than a fundamentalist.  He was drifting down the compromise road, and I'm not at all surprised.

First you get caught in an affair, and the next thing you know, you're compromising your theological standards and spinning rock and/or roll records on drive-time radio.

Heh... but there is a lot of truth here.

Usually, music standards slide or are just not that important anymore; then, the doctrines begin to slide as well. 

But being new evangelical isn't connected with adultery.

What? "Music standards slide then doctrine begins to slide as well?" What a broad brushing statemtent.  Remember the key word here is "standards" which is not a biblical term and is so subjective in the IFB world. My preferences become the worlds standards!

I agree that it is broad brushing -- I'm just commenting on a pattern I've seen repeat over and over again: (1) The music begins to change, usually in the special music: Singers and musicians are unhappy just singing/playing from the hymnal, so they go elsewhere to find music. It may have a worldly sound, which is toned down so as not to offend.  But the music gets "edgier" and more of a contemporary sound, even while preaching against contemporary music.  (2) The drift continues and some people start to leave  (3) the church begins to relax the standards they have preached against for a long time (4) The church removes "Baptist" from their name  (5) All the fundamental doctrines begin to slide

If you don't like standards, we could substitute the Biblical word "doctrine".

I've seen repeatedly that the doctrine concerning things "that aren't that critical" (music, dress) begins to change, and then more and more things begin to fall into the "not that critical" or "non-essentials" list.

Standards as historically practiced by IFB churches are not Biblical doctrine. They are more often than not methods and personal preference. There are many, many, many more evangelical churches that believe, preach and practice THE actual fundamentals of the faith than there are IFB churches that practice extra biblical standards in the name of doctrine.

I'm not arguing with you about whether many of the IFB "standards" are merely men's preferences; I'm was just pointing out that "standards" are valid -- the Bible word is "doctrine".

In my experience (which I admit is limited), many evangelical churches do indeed claim to believe the fundamentals of the faith, but their practice shows little of the Bible commands to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, living righteously and godly.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Practically speaking, doctrine is (in the church context) Biblical truth...as opposed to false doctrine.
Examples are, the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, blood atonement....

Standards, in the same context, are/have been an expected code of conduct, dress and activities.
Examples are no pants on women, attending movies, musical preference, hairstyles...

As the IFB world of the past has practiced such, one is far removed from the other.

I clipped it for readability.

Tarheel, I agree. Practically speaking, doctrine refers to the issues you describe and standards refer to those other things. Absolutely. However, strictly speaking, doctrine refers to any subject the scriptures give voice to.

That's rather the point I was trying to make. Simply separating things into two categories, ie doctrine and standards, does not mean the Bible is silent on those issues we refer to as standards. It's almost as if in many minds the argument becomes "well, that's not doctrine, it's standards, therefore there is no standard because it's not doctrine".

That's not true.

 

[Walt]

Well, since he left NY, he was more of an evangelical than a fundamentalist.  He was drifting down the compromise road, and I'm not at all surprised.

First you get caught in an affair, and the next thing you know, you're compromising your theological standards and spinning rock and/or roll records on drive-time radio.

Heh... but there is a lot of truth here.

Usually, music standards slide or are just not that important anymore; then, the doctrines begin to slide as well. 

But being new evangelical isn't connected with adultery.

What? "Music standards slide then doctrine begins to slide as well?" What a broad brushing statemtent.  Remember the key word here is "standards" which is not a biblical term and is so subjective in the IFB world. My preferences become the worlds standards!

I agree that it is broad brushing -- I'm just commenting on a pattern I've seen repeat over and over again: (1) The music begins to change, usually in the special music: Singers and musicians are unhappy just singing/playing from the hymnal, so they go elsewhere to find music. It may have a worldly sound, which is toned down so as not to offend.  But the music gets "edgier" and more of a contemporary sound, even while preaching against contemporary music.  (2) The drift continues and some people start to leave  (3) the church begins to relax the standards they have preached against for a long time (4) The church removes "Baptist" from their name  (5) All the fundamental doctrines begin to slide

If you don't like standards, we could substitute the Biblical word "doctrine".

I've seen repeatedly that the doctrine concerning things "that aren't that critical" (music, dress) begins to change, and then more and more things begin to fall into the "not that critical" or "non-essentials" list.

Standards as historically practiced by IFB churches are not Biblical doctrine. They are more often than not methods and personal preference. There are many, many, many more evangelical churches that believe, preach and practice THE actual fundamentals of the faith than there are IFB churches that practice extra biblical standards in the name of doctrine.

I haven't been posting for a while.

The topic of standards is one I have thought about. A lot. Does the Bible teach "standards?". Depends on how you're using the word. The actual dictionary definition, or rather one of them, is "A rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment". Doctrine. "A particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated".

So, standards are simply applied doctrine. Doctrine is meaningless without a practical application.

For instance. OT. Thou shalt not committ adultery. NT. Flee fornication. That's doctrine. Applied. Any sexual contact between a man and a woman that are not wedded in matrimony is sinful and off limits for the Christian. That's a standard of behaviour, in particular moral behaviour.

Now, the question is, can an application of doctrine be applied to other matters? Music? Clothing? Certainly. Let's start simply. Clothing. More than public nudity. That must be clearly wrong, and to the person it isn't clear to, there's no point having a logical discussion about anything really except salvation. Ok, if it's not nudity, what is the standard (applied doctrine) of clothing? Here's where the disagreement actually starts. What is the applied doctrine of clothing? Is there a minimum? So, saying "there are no standards in the Bible" is foolish.

The question really is, what standard (applied doctrine) does the Bible teach as a minimum guideline for believers?

Practically speaking, doctrine is (in the church context) Biblical truth...as opposed to false doctrine.
Examples are, the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, blood atonement....

Standards, in the same context, are/have been an expected code of conduct, dress and activities.
Examples are no pants on women, attending movies, musical preference, hairstyles...

As the IFB world of the past has practiced such, one is far removed from the other.

I actually agree with much of what you are saying -- many IFB doctrines were mostly just cherry-picking preferences.

The Bible DOES discuss men and women's clothing, and it DOES discuss music, and it DOES discuss hair ("short" for men, "long" for women -- specifically, it should cover something on a woman that is to be uncovered on men).

I understand if you disagree with what another person has determined the Scripture teaches on these topics, but it seems to me somewhat unfair to dismiss this as merely personal preference.

Having said this, however, the Bible never gives us a list of what is "worldly" - and, in my opinion, that was on purpose; we should be striving to please God in all that we do, and we should be seeking His will as to whether a particular thing is worldly, unless the Scripture gives some other clear leading.

What has happened in so many IFB churches is that shallow soul-winning brought in scores of unregenerate people who don't have the Spirit of God indwelling them, and for these people, IFB leadership created rules of "this is worldly", etc.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Practically speaking, doctrine is (in the church context) Biblical truth...as opposed to false doctrine.
Examples are, the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, blood atonement....

Standards, in the same context, are/have been an expected code of conduct, dress and activities.
Examples are no pants on women, attending movies, musical preference, hairstyles...

As the IFB world of the past has practiced such, one is far removed from the other.

I clipped it for readability.

Tarheel, I agree. Practically speaking, doctrine refers to the issues you describe and standards refer to those other things. Absolutely. However, strictly speaking, doctrine refers to any subject the scriptures give voice to.

That's rather the point I was trying to make. Simply separating things into two categories, ie doctrine and standards, does not mean the Bible is silent on those issues we refer to as standards. It's almost as if in many minds the argument becomes "well, that's not doctrine, it's standards, therefore there is no standard because it's not doctrine".

That's not true.

And, I'm not arguing such.

What I am arguing is that somehow personal preference was made into doctrine...virtually on par with 'the virgin birth'.
For instance, women wearing pants is hardly a viable biblical doctrine...yet it was elevated to such by the mainstream IFB's of the past few decades.
There is a biblical issue of modesty. But for that to evolve into a detailed list describing THE standard for modest dress is ludicrous.

Not to mention secondary separation...I cant fellowship with him because he fellowships with them...is equally ludicrous.
I'm not arguing for license, but against the elevation of preference into a doctrine.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

In my understanding there is no such thing and "standards." There is only one Standard, the word of God.

If God's word says do it, we do it.

If God's word says don't do it, we don't do it.

If God's word is silent, so are we.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Practically speaking, doctrine is (in the church context) Biblical truth...as opposed to false doctrine.
Examples are, the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, blood atonement....

Standards, in the same context, are/have been an expected code of conduct, dress and activities.
Examples are no pants on women, attending movies, musical preference, hairstyles...

As the IFB world of the past has practiced such, one is far removed from the other.

I clipped it for readability.

Tarheel, I agree. Practically speaking, doctrine refers to the issues you describe and standards refer to those other things. Absolutely. However, strictly speaking, doctrine refers to any subject the scriptures give voice to.

That's rather the point I was trying to make. Simply separating things into two categories, ie doctrine and standards, does not mean the Bible is silent on those issues we refer to as standards. It's almost as if in many minds the argument becomes "well, that's not doctrine, it's standards, therefore there is no standard because it's not doctrine".

That's not true.

And, I'm not arguing such.

What I am arguing is that somehow personal preference was made into doctrine...virtually on par with 'the virgin birth'.
For instance, women wearing pants is hardly a viable biblical doctrine...yet it was elevated to such by the mainstream IFB's of the past few decades.
There is a biblical issue of modesty. But for that to evolve into a detailed list describing THE standard for modest dress is ludicrous.

Not to mention secondary separation...I cant fellowship with him because he fellowships with them...is equally ludicrous.
I'm not arguing for license, but against the elevation of preference into a doctrine.

So, I agree with the view that it is wrong to elevate personal preference into doctrine. Wholeheartedly.

I would also point out that while it may be wrong to force/coerce people into obedience vs allowing them to grow in grace, the position one may be being coerced into may be right. I'm writing that statement hoping it gets understood. Let's try saying it this way. It's always wrong to play the place of the Holy Spirit, and it may be very wrong to "guilt" someone into attending church or being baptised, but that doesn't mean attending church or being baptised (after salvation) is or are wrong.

Such is true of any Biblical standard/doctrine/applied teaching.

So, the question is, regarding dress standards, is that a man made doctrine, thereby a preference, or, does the Word of God teach what may be termed "binary" genders. How does God want us to express those gender roles? Is there to be a clear, visible, external distinction between male and female?

I'm certain there is. To be frank, it puzzles me that others think differently.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

In my understanding there is no such thing and "standards." There is only one Standard, the word of God.

If God's word says do it, we do it.

If God's word say don't do it, we don't do it.

If God's word is silent, so are we.

Fair statement.

Does God's Word have anything to say about music? Clothing? If so, what, and how do i apply it practically in my life? I asked those two because they are likely highly controversial issues.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Well, since he left NY, he was more of an evangelical than a fundamentalist.  He was drifting down the compromise road, and I'm not at all surprised.

First you get caught in an affair, and the next thing you know, you're compromising your theological standards and spinning rock and/or roll records on drive-time radio.

Heh... but there is a lot of truth here.

Usually, music standards slide or are just not that important anymore; then, the doctrines begin to slide as well. 

But being new evangelical isn't connected with adultery.

What? "Music standards slide then doctrine begins to slide as well?" What a broad brushing statemtent.  Remember the key word here is "standards" which is not a biblical term and is so subjective in the IFB world. My preferences become the worlds standards!

I agree that it is broad brushing -- I'm just commenting on a pattern I've seen repeat over and over again: (1) The music begins to change, usually in the special music: Singers and musicians are unhappy just singing/playing from the hymnal, so they go elsewhere to find music. It may have a worldly sound, which is toned down so as not to offend.  But the music gets "edgier" and more of a contemporary sound, even while preaching against contemporary music.  (2) The drift continues and some people start to leave  (3) the church begins to relax the standards they have preached against for a long time (4) The church removes "Baptist" from their name  (5) All the fundamental doctrines begin to slide

If you don't like standards, we could substitute the Biblical word "doctrine".

I've seen repeatedly that the doctrine concerning things "that aren't that critical" (music, dress) begins to change, and then more and more things begin to fall into the "not that critical" or "non-essentials" list.

Standards as historically practiced by IFB churches are not Biblical doctrine. They are more often than not methods and personal preference. There are many, many, many more evangelical churches that believe, preach and practice THE actual fundamentals of the faith than there are IFB churches that practice extra biblical standards in the name of doctrine.

I haven't been posting for a while.

The topic of standards is one I have thought about. A lot. Does the Bible teach "standards?". Depends on how you're using the word. The actual dictionary definition, or rather one of them, is "A rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment". Doctrine. "A particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated".

So, standards are simply applied doctrine. Doctrine is meaningless without a practical application.

For instance. OT. Thou shalt not committ adultery. NT. Flee fornication. That's doctrine. Applied. Any sexual contact between a man and a woman that are not wedded in matrimony is sinful and off limits for the Christian. That's a standard of behaviour, in particular moral behaviour.

Now, the question is, can an application of doctrine be applied to other matters? Music? Clothing? Certainly. Let's start simply. Clothing. More than public nudity. That must be clearly wrong, and to the person it isn't clear to, there's no point having a logical discussion about anything really except salvation. Ok, if it's not nudity, what is the standard (applied doctrine) of clothing? Here's where the disagreement actually starts. What is the applied doctrine of clothing? Is there a minimum? So, saying "there are no standards in the Bible" is foolish.

The question really is, what standard (applied doctrine) does the Bible teach as a minimum guideline for believers?

Practically speaking, doctrine is (in the church context) Biblical truth...as opposed to false doctrine.
Examples are, the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, blood atonement....

Standards, in the same context, are/have been an expected code of conduct, dress and activities.
Examples are no pants on women, attending movies, musical preference, hairstyles...

As the IFB world of the past has practiced such, one is far removed from the other.

I actually agree with much of what you are saying -- many IFB doctrines were mostly just cherry-picking preferences.

The Bible DOES discuss men and women's clothing, and it DOES discuss music, and it DOES discuss hair ("short" for men, "long" for women -- specifically, it should cover something on a woman that is to be uncovered on men).

I understand if you disagree with what another person has determined the Scripture teaches on these topics, but it seems to me somewhat unfair to dismiss this as merely personal preference.

Having said this, however, the Bible never gives us a list of what is "worldly" - and, in my opinion, that was on purpose; we should be striving to please God in all that we do, and we should be seeking His will as to whether a particular thing is worldly, unless the Scripture gives some other clear leading.

What has happened in so many IFB churches is that shallow soul-winning brought in scores of unregenerate people who don't have the Spirit of God indwelling them, and for these people, IFB leadership created rules of "this is worldly", etc.

I believe most IFB churches are filled with unsaved people who were won by soul winners using shallow Zig Ziglar cookware sales techniques and not by the Holy Spirit of God. Just because you can grow a church with them does not mean they are right.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

Does God's Word have anything to say about music?

Yes. Eph 5:19  speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; singing, and making melody in your heart to the Lord.

Psalms, ??????, singing the Psalms.

Hymns - ???????? Extemporaneous expressions in praise of God, uttered under the influence of the Holy Spirit, or in an expression of his special goodness. See Acts 16:25 But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.

Songs - ??????? Odes; the singing of poetic compositions but remembering that they were all ??????????, spiritual - those that magnify God and edify men.

Clothing?

Yes. 1 Tim 2:9  In the same way, that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and propriety; not just with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing;
10  but (which becomes women professing godliness) with good works.

The word "modest" does not mean "well covered." It means "appropriate." A Christian woman, in the context of the worship service, should wear clothing appropriate to her station, as a humble, godly Christian woman.

 

[Escapee]

Well, since he left NY, he was more of an evangelical than a fundamentalist.  He was drifting down the compromise road, and I'm not at all surprised.

First you get caught in an affair, and the next thing you know, you're compromising your theological standards and spinning rock and/or roll records on drive-time radio.

Heh... but there is a lot of truth here.

Usually, music standards slide or are just not that important anymore; then, the doctrines begin to slide as well. 

But being new evangelical isn't connected with adultery.

What? "Music standards slide then doctrine begins to slide as well?" What a broad brushing statemtent.  Remember the key word here is "standards" which is not a biblical term and is so subjective in the IFB world. My preferences become the worlds standards!

I agree that it is broad brushing -- I'm just commenting on a pattern I've seen repeat over and over again: (1) The music begins to change, usually in the special music: Singers and musicians are unhappy just singing/playing from the hymnal, so they go elsewhere to find music. It may have a worldly sound, which is toned down so as not to offend.  But the music gets "edgier" and more of a contemporary sound, even while preaching against contemporary music.  (2) The drift continues and some people start to leave  (3) the church begins to relax the standards they have preached against for a long time (4) The church removes "Baptist" from their name  (5) All the fundamental doctrines begin to slide

If you don't like standards, we could substitute the Biblical word "doctrine".

I've seen repeatedly that the doctrine concerning things "that aren't that critical" (music, dress) begins to change, and then more and more things begin to fall into the "not that critical" or "non-essentials" list.

Standards as historically practiced by IFB churches are not Biblical doctrine. They are more often than not methods and personal preference. There are many, many, many more evangelical churches that believe, preach and practice THE actual fundamentals of the faith than there are IFB churches that practice extra biblical standards in the name of doctrine.

I haven't been posting for a while.

The topic of standards is one I have thought about. A lot. Does the Bible teach "standards?". Depends on how you're using the word. The actual dictionary definition, or rather one of them, is "A rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment". Doctrine. "A particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated".

So, standards are simply applied doctrine. Doctrine is meaningless without a practical application.

For instance. OT. Thou shalt not committ adultery. NT. Flee fornication. That's doctrine. Applied. Any sexual contact between a man and a woman that are not wedded in matrimony is sinful and off limits for the Christian. That's a standard of behaviour, in particular moral behaviour.

Now, the question is, can an application of doctrine be applied to other matters? Music? Clothing? Certainly. Let's start simply. Clothing. More than public nudity. That must be clearly wrong, and to the person it isn't clear to, there's no point having a logical discussion about anything really except salvation. Ok, if it's not nudity, what is the standard (applied doctrine) of clothing? Here's where the disagreement actually starts. What is the applied doctrine of clothing? Is there a minimum? So, saying "there are no standards in the Bible" is foolish.

The question really is, what standard (applied doctrine) does the Bible teach as a minimum guideline for believers?

Practically speaking, doctrine is (in the church context) Biblical truth...as opposed to false doctrine.
Examples are, the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, blood atonement....

Standards, in the same context, are/have been an expected code of conduct, dress and activities.
Examples are no pants on women, attending movies, musical preference, hairstyles...

As the IFB world of the past has practiced such, one is far removed from the other.

I actually agree with much of what you are saying -- many IFB doctrines were mostly just cherry-picking preferences.

The Bible DOES discuss men and women's clothing, and it DOES discuss music, and it DOES discuss hair ("short" for men, "long" for women -- specifically, it should cover something on a woman that is to be uncovered on men).

I understand if you disagree with what another person has determined the Scripture teaches on these topics, but it seems to me somewhat unfair to dismiss this as merely personal preference.

Having said this, however, the Bible never gives us a list of what is "worldly" - and, in my opinion, that was on purpose; we should be striving to please God in all that we do, and we should be seeking His will as to whether a particular thing is worldly, unless the Scripture gives some other clear leading.

What has happened in so many IFB churches is that shallow soul-winning brought in scores of unregenerate people who don't have the Spirit of God indwelling them, and for these people, IFB leadership created rules of "this is worldly", etc.

I believe most IFB churches are filled with unsaved people who were won by soul winners using shallow Zig Ziglar cookware sales techniques and not by the Holy Spirit of God. Just because you can grow a church with them does not mean they are right.

Kaboooooom and amen. 1,2,3 repeat after me! Pray the prayer, be loyal to your pastor and give and you are good to go! It is sad......reallly sad!

 

[Agent P]

In my understanding there is no such thing and "standards." There is only one Standard, the word of God.

If God's word says do it, we do it.

If God's word says don't do it, we don't do it.

If God's word is silent, so are we.

If you carry the logic of that last statement to its full effect, you wind up in the Church of Christ without a piano or organ.  That's their defense: "the New Testament says nothin' about musical instruments in the church!"  Just sayin'.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

If you carry the logic of that last statement to its full effect, you wind up in the Church of Christ without a piano or organ.  That's their defense: "the New Testament says nothin' about musical instruments in the church!"  Just sayin'.

No, you don't. God's word is silent on the use of piano or organ so are we. If a church chooses to use such musical instruments that is their business. And if another church chooses not to use such instruments, that is their business.

However, the bible is replete with references to musical instruments being used as a vehicle for worship. See Daniel 3:5 for a  partial list, although in Daniel it is in a negative context. Psalm 33:2 puts it in a positive context, "Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings."

Psalm 149:3  Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp. (A piano is a hammered harp.)

Psalm 150:3  Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.

You want an organ instead? No problem.

Psalm 150:4  Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.

And even, in Psalm 150:5  Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.

 

[Ransom]

If you carry the logic of that last statement to its full effect, you wind up in the Church of Christ without a piano or organ.  That's their defense: "the New Testament says nothin' about musical instruments in the church!"  Just sayin'.

Then their stance is, "if the Bible is silent, don't do it."

Silence implies a kind of neutrality: if Scripture says nothing applicable to a topic, then it is an adiaphora - a matter of indifference - and there is no biblical basis for passing judgment on another party for taking a position different to our own.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Does God's Word have anything to say about music?

Yes. Eph 5:19  speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; singing, and making melody in your heart to the Lord.

Psalms, ??????, singing the Psalms.

Hymns - ???????? Extemporaneous expressions in praise of God, uttered under the influence of the Holy Spirit, or in an expression of his special goodness. See Acts 16:25 But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.

Songs - ??????? Odes; the singing of poetic compositions but remembering that they were all ??????????, spiritual - those that magnify God and edify men.

Clothing?

Yes. 1 Tim 2:9  In the same way, that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and propriety; not just with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing;
10  but (which becomes women professing godliness) with good works.

The word "modest" does not mean "well covered." It means "appropriate." A Christian woman, in the context of the worship service, should wear clothing appropriate to her station, as a humble, godly Christian woman.

1 Timothy 2:9  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;

1 Tim 2:9  In the same way, that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and propriety; not just with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing;

So, I went a little around and around in my mind. Both versions use the word "modest", just in different places.

KJV translated modest, New Heart translated decent. "Kosmios". Orderly, decorous, from well arranged. Certainly, appropriate would be a good synonym to use.

New Heart translated modest, KJV translated shamefacedness. "Aidos". Bashfulness, downcast eyes, awe, reverence. What we today call modest. Add to the overall thought sobriety/propriety and we have a well arranged, well covered, well controlled manner of dress.

My other question is, is that all the Bible has to say about clothing?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Practically speaking, doctrine is (in the church context) Biblical truth...as opposed to false doctrine.
Examples are, the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, blood atonement....

Standards, in the same context, are/have been an expected code of conduct, dress and activities.
Examples are no pants on women, attending movies, musical preference, hairstyles...

As the IFB world of the past has practiced such, one is far removed from the other.

I clipped it for readability.

Tarheel, I agree. Practically speaking, doctrine refers to the issues you describe and standards refer to those other things. Absolutely. However, strictly speaking, doctrine refers to any subject the scriptures give voice to.

That's rather the point I was trying to make. Simply separating things into two categories, ie doctrine and standards, does not mean the Bible is silent on those issues we refer to as standards. It's almost as if in many minds the argument becomes "well, that's not doctrine, it's standards, therefore there is no standard because it's not doctrine".

That's not true.

And, I'm not arguing such.

What I am arguing is that somehow personal preference was made into doctrine...virtually on par with 'the virgin birth'.
For instance, women wearing pants is hardly a viable biblical doctrine...yet it was elevated to such by the mainstream IFB's of the past few decades.
There is a biblical issue of modesty. But for that to evolve into a detailed list describing THE standard for modest dress is ludicrous.

Not to mention secondary separation...I cant fellowship with him because he fellowships with them...is equally ludicrous.
I'm not arguing for license, but against the elevation of preference into a doctrine.

So, I agree with the view that it is wrong to elevate personal preference into doctrine. Wholeheartedly.

I would also point out that while it may be wrong to force/coerce people into obedience vs allowing them to grow in grace, the position one may be being coerced into may be right. I'm writing that statement hoping it gets understood. Let's try saying it this way. It's always wrong to play the place of the Holy Spirit, and it may be very wrong to "guilt" someone into attending church or being baptised, but that doesn't mean attending church or being baptised (after salvation) is or are wrong.

Such is true of any Biblical standard/doctrine/applied teaching.

So, the question is, regarding dress standards, is that a man made doctrine, thereby a preference, or, does the Word of God teach what may be termed "binary" genders. How does God want us to express those gender roles? Is there to be a clear, visible, external distinction between male and female?

I'm certain there is. To be frank, it puzzles me that others think differently.

ItinerantPreacher:
So, I agree with the view that it is wrong to elevate personal preference into doctrine. Wholeheartedly.

I would also point out that while it may be wrong to force/coerce people into obedience vs allowing them to grow in grace, the position one may be being coerced into may be right. I'm writing that statement hoping it gets understood. Let's try saying it this way. It's always wrong to play the place of the Holy Spirit, and it may be very wrong to "guilt" someone into attending church or being baptised, but that doesn't mean attending church or being baptised (after salvation) is or are wrong.

Such is true of any Biblical standard/doctrine/applied teaching.

So, the question is, regarding dress standards, is that a man made doctrine, thereby a preference, or, does the Word of God teach what may be termed "binary" genders. How does God want us to express those gender roles? Is there to be a clear, visible, external distinction between male and female?

I'm certain there is. To be frank, it puzzles me that others think differently.

There most certainly are binary genders...but women wearing pants hardly attacks that fact.
Some here hold that modesty is simply socially appropriate dress. I would say that principle and common sense would show that it is possible for women to dress 'inappropriately' in other ways.
When our girls were teenagers, we policed how they dressed.
But 'immodest dress' cannot be defined or cured by following a list made up in the bowels of the old path's fundamentalist headquarters. 

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

I would say that principle and common sense would show that it is possible for women to dress 'inappropriately' in other ways.

What is the difference between "inappropriate dress" and "inappropriate dress?"

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Practically speaking, doctrine is (in the church context) Biblical truth...as opposed to false doctrine.
Examples are, the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, blood atonement....

Standards, in the same context, are/have been an expected code of conduct, dress and activities.
Examples are no pants on women, attending movies, musical preference, hairstyles...

As the IFB world of the past has practiced such, one is far removed from the other.

I clipped it for readability.

Tarheel, I agree. Practically speaking, doctrine refers to the issues you describe and standards refer to those other things. Absolutely. However, strictly speaking, doctrine refers to any subject the scriptures give voice to.

That's rather the point I was trying to make. Simply separating things into two categories, ie doctrine and standards, does not mean the Bible is silent on those issues we refer to as standards. It's almost as if in many minds the argument becomes "well, that's not doctrine, it's standards, therefore there is no standard because it's not doctrine".

That's not true.

And, I'm not arguing such.

What I am arguing is that somehow personal preference was made into doctrine...virtually on par with 'the virgin birth'.
For instance, women wearing pants is hardly a viable biblical doctrine...yet it was elevated to such by the mainstream IFB's of the past few decades.
There is a biblical issue of modesty. But for that to evolve into a detailed list describing THE standard for modest dress is ludicrous.

Not to mention secondary separation...I cant fellowship with him because he fellowships with them...is equally ludicrous.
I'm not arguing for license, but against the elevation of preference into a doctrine.

So, I agree with the view that it is wrong to elevate personal preference into doctrine. Wholeheartedly.

I would also point out that while it may be wrong to force/coerce people into obedience vs allowing them to grow in grace, the position one may be being coerced into may be right. I'm writing that statement hoping it gets understood. Let's try saying it this way. It's always wrong to play the place of the Holy Spirit, and it may be very wrong to "guilt" someone into attending church or being baptised, but that doesn't mean attending church or being baptised (after salvation) is or are wrong.

Such is true of any Biblical standard/doctrine/applied teaching.

So, the question is, regarding dress standards, is that a man made doctrine, thereby a preference, or, does the Word of God teach what may be termed "binary" genders. How does God want us to express those gender roles? Is there to be a clear, visible, external distinction between male and female?

I'm certain there is. To be frank, it puzzles me that others think differently.

ItinerantPreacher:
So, I agree with the view that it is wrong to elevate personal preference into doctrine. Wholeheartedly.

I would also point out that while it may be wrong to force/coerce people into obedience vs allowing them to grow in grace, the position one may be being coerced into may be right. I'm writing that statement hoping it gets understood. Let's try saying it this way. It's always wrong to play the place of the Holy Spirit, and it may be very wrong to "guilt" someone into attending church or being baptised, but that doesn't mean attending church or being baptised (after salvation) is or are wrong.

Such is true of any Biblical standard/doctrine/applied teaching.

So, the question is, regarding dress standards, is that a man made doctrine, thereby a preference, or, does the Word of God teach what may be termed "binary" genders. How does God want us to express those gender roles? Is there to be a clear, visible, external distinction between male and female?

I'm certain there is. To be frank, it puzzles me that others think differently.

There most certainly are binary genders...but women wearing pants hardly attacks that fact.
Some here hold that modesty is simply socially appropriate dress. I would say that principle and common sense would show that it is possible for women to dress 'inappropriately' in other ways.
When our girls were teenagers, we policed how they dressed.
But 'immodest dress' cannot be defined or cured by following a list made up in the bowels of the old path's fundamentalist headquarters. 

OK. Can men wear skirts, and if not, why? I'm not looking for opinions. I'm looking for a Biblical principle.