Tag: Standards

Help for Understanding Issues Relating to Conscience and Legalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Bill Busshaus at the Christian Communicators Worldwide blog, recently published a helpful “Outline for Understanding Issues of Conscience and Legalism“. I may have a minor quibble on a couple of his points, but I thought most of it to be quite sound. It may prove a help to some of my readers. I’d like to excerpt a few sections of it, and encourage you to go read the whole thing.

Most of us have seen the movie “Chariots of Fire” and have been greatly encouraged by the example of Eric Liddell who refused to compete in races on Sunday. But if a Christian held a different position regarding what is allowed on Sunday, could that believer be just as dedicated to Christ with his differing opinion?

…As much as we would like to consider all of our personal convictions as biblical absolutes, the fact of the matter is, they may not be. Consider just a few historical examples of convictions of personal conscience in order to see how each might demand that his side of the position is an absolute:

* Vegetable vs. Meat diet
* Honoring the Mosaic sabbath day vs. Considering all days alike
* Not eating meat sacrificed to idols vs. All things are clean
* Participating in war vs. Pacifism
* Going to the theater, dancing, or playing cards vs. Abstaining from the world
* Drinking wine vs. Being a teetotaler
* Playing sports on Sunday vs. Abstaining from “your own pleasure”
* Gun ownership vs. Nonviolence
* Political Candidate “A” vs. Political candidate “B”
* Wearing makeup or dying your hair vs. The God-given “natural” look

We must be honest and careful in these matters. Just because an issue is not presented in the Law of Christ does not mean that God has nothing to say about it. There are biblical principles which must guide us in matters of personal conviction.

Instruction from Romans Chapter Fourteen and Fifteen:

1. We must accept one another when we differ on matters of personal conviction. 14:1, 15:1, 7
2. We must not be on a campaign to convert others to our position. 14:1, 22, 15:1
3. There are stronger and weaker positions. 14:2, 15:1
4. We must not judge others or view with contempt those who differ with us on these matters. 14:3
5. We are individually accountable to God, and will indeed have to give an account of our behavior to Him. 14:4, 10-12.
6. We must be convinced in our own minds; that is, there must be no doubt in our minds as to the acceptableness of our position. 14:5
7. It is possible for Christians with differing conscientious convictions to be pleasing to the Lord. 14:6
8. The goal is to ascribe to Christ His rightful position as Lord. 14:7-10
9. Don’t let your liberty of conscience cause a brother to stumble. 14:13, 21
10. All things are clean that are not forbidden, but I can’t proceed with a doubting conscience. 14:14
11. Do not practice your liberty in such a manner that will cause offense; this would violate the law of love. 14:15, 20
12. Temporal matters are not central to the Kingdom of God, but it is the eternal things wrought by the Spirit that should be our focus. 14:17
13. Remember that your personal convictions are between you and God. 14:22
14. Never violate your conscience. You cannot do so without sinning. 14:23
15. We should strive to be at peace, and to please the other for his edification. 14:19, 15:1-2

…

Legalism is:

1. Distorting the gospel by adding conditions to free grace: Acts 15:1, 7-11; Gal.1:6-7, 2:11-16, 4:8-11, Gal. 5:2-4; Col.2:16-17
2. Substituting man-made regulations for the Word of God: Matthew 15:1-3
3. Majoring on the minors and neglecting the more important issues: Luke 11:42
4. Overconcern with the externals while disregarding matters of the heart: Matthew 23:27
5. Regarding with contempt or judging a brother based on matters of personal conviction: Romans 14:1-5
6. Trusting in ourselves that we are righteous based on religious performance: Luke 18:9-14
7. Hypocrisy, the leaven of the Pharisees: Luke 11:53-12:1

Legalism is not:

1. A zeal for the commandments of Christ: Matthew 5:19; I Corinthians 7:19
2. A ministry that teaches others to follow Christ in obedience: Matthew 28:20; I Thes.4:1-2
3. Strong personal convictions (as long as they are not required of others): Romans 14:2,5
4. Man-made restrictions for personal protection from sinful habits (as long as we do not begin to view them as binding on others): Romans 13:14; I Corinthians 6:12
5. A zeal for good works: Eph.2:10; Titus 1:16, 2:7, 14, 3:8, 14
6. Limiting our liberty for the benefit of others: Romans 14:15, 21, 15:2; Acts 16:1-3
7. Obedience: John 14:15, 23, 15:10; I John 2:3-5, 5:2-4

I’ve only given you some of what Bill collects in his post. He gives a list of biblical principles to guide our conduct as well. I encourage you to give it a read and come back and let me know what you think.

What’s Wrong with Bikinis?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Speaking from a male’s perspective, everything is WRONG with bikinis. They certainly don’t help a man pursue godliness in this present world. Recently, however, Nancy Wilson at the Femina blog has taken up the topic of beach wear and bikinis. She points out that emphasizing what Bible verse condemns bikinis or any other specific item of clothing is not the best perspective. What would be RIGHT about bikinis for a woman to choose to wear one? Consider her thoughts:

Let’s come at it another way. Rather than looking for the absence of evil motives, let’s look for the presence of good ones. The Bible says women should be (to list a few things) sober, discreet, chaste (Titus 2:4-5), meek and quiet (1 Peter 3:4) holy (vs. 5-6), modest, dressing with propriety and moderation (1 Timothy 2:8), characterized by faith, charity, and holiness with self-control (vs. 15). So let’s say a Christian woman is wearing a thong to the beach. She says her conscience is clear and her husband doesn’t mind and she has no impure motives at all. But that is not the same thing as having good, Christ-like motives as she puts on her thong. Is she being discreet, chaste, holy, etc.? Show me how a thong (or a bikini) is a demonstration of propriety and moderation, chastity and self-control….

We want to measure the amount of skin, the hem length, or the neckline in square inches and defend our ground based on our lack of evil motives and the lack of a Bible verse that mentions skinny dipping. But we should be looking somewhere else entirely, and that is to Christ. How does our clothing demonstrate that we belong to Him? How does it display our discretion, holiness, chastity, moderation, self-control, and meekness? When we look at it that way, we are getting closer to the truth.

And one last point. Christian women are to adorn themselves (1 Peter 3) in a manner that impresses God. But dressing to be attractive is not at all the same as dressing to attract. [read the whole post]

Nancy has two recent posts on the topic: Beach Treats and More on Beach Wear. As much as I hope women help us guys out in the fight for pure thoughts, Nancy’s thoughts on how immodest clothing affects women and reflects their heart may be even more helpful in promoting virtue in this area. With the summer heat upon us, I thought it would be good to highlight these helpful posts and encourage my readers to consider this matter more fully. [HT: Sharper Iron Filings]

The Real Meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22

~ Bob Hayton ~ 26 Comments

Anyone with roots in conservative evangelicalism, and particularly fundamentalism, will have heard 1 Thess. 5:22 used as justification for all sorts of personal standards. Going to see a movie, drinking from a dark bottle, using playing cards, wearing facial hair (for men) or wearing pants (for women) — all of these activities and more are condemned with the words: “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess 5:22, KJV).

These words are used as a bully club to keep people in line with the group’s expectations, or more usually, that of the leader. What appears as evil to one is not necessarily going to appear as evil to another; and so, taken to an extreme, the careful Christian could hardly do anything for fear of it somehow being misconstrued as evil.

This basic interpretation of the verse has surprisingly wide attestation. A wide variety of commentators uphold this understanding: Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Harry Ironside, J. Vernon McGee and Albert Barnes. It certainly is not good to rush into things which appear to be evil. But the nuance I see as unwarranted is more adequately found in these thoughts by Ironside: “All of us should remember that others are watching us and taking note of how we behave. We ought to abstain from all that looks like evil…” Or as McGee puts it: “This… is the answer for questionable pastimes and amusements. If there is any question in your mind whether something is right or wrong, then it is wrong for you. Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

Scripture does teach that we should watch out for weaker brethren and not put stumbling blocks in their way. But this particular verse is taken to teach a testimony should be maintained and things avoided which might at a far glance from a passing stranger appear to be sinful, even if upon closer examination they are not. Consider some of these modern applications of this verse in a fundamentalist context.

Fundamentalist Applications of 1 Thess. 5:22

The verse is used in a list of “67 tests that can be used by a believer to decide upon a course of action“. It is the “Appearance Test”. “Would what I do assume any appearance of evil? Would my actions be misinterpreted or seen in a negative light?”

It is used in a church statement of faith in relation to the dress styles church members should have. “We believe that Christian people should look and act like Christian people and not like those who love the things of this world…. Appearance shall be neat and clean, with short hair for men and longer for women. If any statement is to be made by means of dress, it should be a positive statement for Jesus Christ.”

It is used in a church constitution as follows: “The life of the pastor and his family should be an example of godliness and spirituality. They should not indulge in worldly or sinful practices which would tend to weaken the testimony of the church (1 Thess. 5:22 ).”

In a statement copywrighted by BJU Press, a group called the International Testimony to an Infallible Bible, lists 1 Thess. 5:22 as one of 5 reasons why “Christians… separate from the world and from worldliness…” The reason is “To make clear to Christians and non-Christians alike by their actions that they belong to God, not to the world (I Thessalonians 5:22).”

Cooper Abrams of bible-truth.org applies this to ecclesiastical separation: “This verse too is dealing with biblical separation from evil and sin in any form. It is the broadest of all the verses and plainly states to “abstain” from all appearance of evil. To “abstain” means to “hold one’s self off from” or to “refrain from.” Is not false doctrine evil? God clearly throughout His word over and over again condemns sin and false and idolatrous teachers. Is standing beside them, and working with those in doctrinal error “refraining” evil? The answer is obviously no. It is in fact standing with them.”

A popular King James Bible Only site, lists the NKJV’s rendering of the verse as “every form of evil” instead of “every appearance of evil” as one of 337 changes removed from the AV 1611.

David Cloud, an influential fundamentalist leader, applies the verse to everything from alcohol and TV to a new evangelical approach to ministry.

A Closer Look at 1 Thess. 5:22

Key to understanding 1 Thess. 5:22 is appreciating it in its context. Determining the meaning of the Greek word ειδους‚ (eidos) translated “appearance” by the KJV but “form” or “kind” in most modern Bible versions is also important.

Leon Morris in the Tyndale New Testament Commentary on 1-2 Thessalonians covers both of these points quite well. I’ll let him explain:

The positive injunction is followed by the negative. The form employed is a strong one with the preposition apo (as in iv. 3) used to emphasize the complete separation of the believer from evil. There is some doubt as to the meaning of the word eidous rendered appearance… as in AV [another abbreviation for KJV]…. The word eidos means the outward appearance of form (Lk. iii. 22, ‘shape’), without any notion of unreality. It is also used in the sense ‘sort, species, kind’. AV takes it in a third sense, ‘semblance’ as opposed to reality, but this does not seem to be attested elsewhere, and it is unlikely that the apostle would be concerned only with outward appearance (there is no word ‘even’ here to give the meaning, ‘even from the appearance of evil’). Our choice seems to be between ‘every visible form of evil’ (with no notion of unreality), and ‘every kind of evil’. The use of the word elsewhere in the New Testament favours the former; but there are enough examples of the term meaning ‘kind’ in the papyri to make the second quite possible. And in view of the context I am inclined to accept it. Paul is urging his friends to eschew evil of every kind.

The change from that which is good (lit. ‘the good’) in the previous verse to ‘every kind of evil’ in this is significant. The good is one, but evil is manifold, and is to be avoided in all its forms. — pg. 106, Eerdmans 1958 (1982 reprinted edition) [italics original, bolded emphasis mine]

I would add that The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology edited by Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1975) also explains that the modern concept of “semblance” is foreign to the Greek mind.

The distinction is commonly drawn between outward form and essential substance. Whilst this distinction is also found in Gk., the Gk. idea of form does not imply that every kind of form is a mere outward appearance…. [Speaking now specifically of the classical usage of ειδος]: the modern distinction between the external and the internal, the visible and the invisible, the husk and the kernel, and between the outward form and essential content is inappropriate and foreign to this aspect of Gk. thought…. The LXX uses eidos to translate mar’eh (sight, appearance, vision) and to’ar (form). Here too the outward appearance of the whole being is meant (cf. Gen. 29:17; Isa. 53:2 f.), and not merely the outer shell behind which something quite different might be supposed. — pg. 703-704 (vol. 1)

The closest that the Greek comes to the idea of “semblance” is with the word σχημα.

Moulton and Milligan in their Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, present many papyrii examples contemporary to the NT of the meaning “kind” or “species” for the word ειδος. They also explain that the Greek word (ε)δικος‚ meaning “one’s own” comes from the word ειδος.

The meaning of 1 Thess. 5:22

Given the above closer look, I want to draw out what I believe is an appropriate interpretation and application from this text. I’ll be drawing from the immediate context of the verse beginning with vs. 19 – 23.

Don’t quench the Spirit by despising the role of prophecies in the local assembly. Instead of despising prophecies, you are to test everything (including prophecies). That test should result in your holding fast to “the good” and abstaining from every manifestation of evil. Some prophecies are evil, but the attitude of despising prophecies are also evil. As we test everything, we must approve the good and reject the various forms of evil. In fact we need God Himself to “sanctify (us) completely” so that we are “kept blameless at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Abstaining from “every form of evil” certainly fits in with that.

Now don’t be put off by the mention of prophecies. It is right there in the Bible. Whether or not prophecy applies to times beyond the NT is beside the point in our argument here. One thing is for sure, this teaching can be applied to the preaching and teaching of the Word. We shouldn’t despise teaching which we don’t like, but we should test it.

If it is legitimate to find a distinction between the appearance and the true nature of something in this passage, it would most appropriately apply to the prophecies which appear good but actually are forms of evil. I’m not convinced the Greek would allow this. The passage clearly addresses prophecies we don’t like but that are true. I don’t believe the opposite variety of prophecies (seem true but are bad) is referred to in this passage.

Other Articles

I refer you to the following articles for more on the real meaning of 1 Thess. 5:22.

The Bible on Hair Care

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

No, I haven’t yet found a Biblical defense for using Pert’s Plus. I’m talking about what the Bible says about hair length.

This may be a surprise to you, but listen to what Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:14-15.

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

What do we do with this teaching? In my fundamentalist upbringing, we had hair rules, and for us guys: hair check. If our hair was getting anywhere near our shirt collar or ear lobes, we would be in trouble. Demerits and/or detention would come in a hurry!

It’s easy to discount such standards as tomfoolery. Along with the head covering that 1 Cor. 11 refers to, we can easily contextualize this command as appropriate for Corinthians only. But are we doing justice to Paul’s appeal to “nature” here?

This is the question that a bunch of reforming fundamentalists and I have been addressing in one of our forum topics over at our new group site: Transformed by Grace. The discussion has avoided hard and fast extra Biblical rules, and has been quite profitable. Let me share one small quote, out of several I gave in the discussion. This is from Tom Schreiner in the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Crossway):

Paul’s point, then, is that how men and women wear their hair is a significant indication of whether they are abiding by the created order. Of course, what constitutes long hair is often debated–what is appropriately masculine or feminine in hairstyle may vary widely from culture to culture.

I agree. On this point, I concluded with the following:

I do think women’s hair should be generally long, and men’s generally short. There is some room for varying styles and cultural fashions, but I do think today many of the short, short hairstyles worn by women are both non-attractive, and not glorifying to God.

What do you think? Does the Bible deal with our hair care? What about hairstyles today, is everything neutral or a-moral? Should a Christian look to the Bible before they run to a hairdresser? Please join the discussion in the comments here, or visit the Transformed by Grace forum on the question.

One last point: the Biblical view of a distinction between the genders being reinforced by our dress is also taught in Deut. 22:5. I dealt with that passage (often misused to condemn all women who wear pants) in an earlier post.

Fundamentalist Profundity

~ fundyreformed ~ 10 Comments

Pastor Steve Anderson is the embodiment of almost everything extreme about independent fundamental Baptists. It seems he enjoys posting his often abrasive and extreme preaching as a series of video clips on Youtube.

I’ve posted a jaw-dropping clip of his before, and this one almost tops that. In it he defends the notion that Jesus actually wore pants, not the middle eastern style robe that the rest of us thought he wore.

I thought it might be fitting to post this on April Fools’ Day. It reveals ignorance more than the Biblical notion of the word “fool”. I do pray God will reveal to this pastor the error of his ways and help him.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.804431&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

more about “Jesus wore pants, not a dress!!! IFBx…“, posted with vodpod