Basic Standards

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

So it wasn't sin under the law but after Christ came and through the apostles it became sin?


I think the million dollar question is were the apostles really prohibiting adornment or teaching a principle about focusing on the inner vs the outward.

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

What is your answer?

Your answer is in bold. Definitely.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

What is your answer?

The latter.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

I think the million dollar question is were the apostles really prohibiting adornment or teaching a principle about focusing on the inner vs the outward.

The problem though is when people say "they were teaching a principle" and then use that as the reason why they can violate both the spirit and the letter of the principle.

Again, how does a person exemplify "don't let your adorning be XYZ but rather ABC" while being decked out with XYZ?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The problem though is when people say "they were teaching a principle" and then use that as the reason why they can violate both the spirit and the letter of the principle.

Again, how does a person exemplify "don't let your adorning be XYZ but rather ABC" while being decked out with XYZ?

If you teach a "principle" by saying "don't do X" how does that translate to "it means I can do X"? Wouldn't you say the student failed the lesson?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Bro Flame

Here's a loaded topic.

What standards do you think Apostolic men and women should hold? I want a list for each based on your conviction, understanding, and/or preference.

Let's get it rolling.

I'll give you all mine once a few have commented.

I got the idea for this thread because so many threads here on AFF get lost in the discussion of standards. Let's just dedicate a whole thread to standards for men and women.

Whatcha got?

Where in the Bible does it teach there is a topical category or thing called "standards"? Seems to me a clear sign of unbiblical non-apostolic religions (known scripturally as HERESIES and IDOLATRY) is their reliance on non scriptural theologisms and lack of conformity to Biblical thinking and the apostolic (biblical) worldview.

For example, evangelicalism teaches "praying Jesus into your heart" for salvation and baptism is "an outward sign of a (pre-existent) inward grace." These concepts, categories, and statements are foreign to the Bible. These are clear signs that evangelicalism is NOT the religion of Jesus and His apostles.

Any religion OTHER than that of Jesus and His apostles is either a heresy or idolatry that cannot save but will certainly condemn the soul. So it behooves us to "earnestly contend for THE faith that was ONCE delivered to the saints". Jesus said we would be sanctified by God's truth, and that God's word is truth. So the real saints are sanctified by God's word, not man made traditions or dogmas. Therefore, the religion of the saved can be read in the Bible, whereas the religions of the lost must be found in other sources, books, pamphlets, etc.

Note: I am not saying anything about any particular course of action or "do's and don'ts", I am talking about the CONCEPT of "standards" as a theological dogmatic sphere or area of teaching and concern.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The problem though is when people say "they were teaching a principle" and then use that as the reason why they can violate both the spirit and the letter of the principle.

Again, how does a person exemplify "don't let your adorning be XYZ but rather ABC" while being decked out with XYZ?

."love not in word, but in deed" Does that mean we can't say we love someone in word or is it emphasizing something? Can this apply to 1 tim 2:9?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

."love not in word, but in deed" Does that mean we can't say we love someone in word or is it emphasizing something? Can this apply to 1 tim 2:9?

Good question.

1 John 3:17-19 KJV
But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? [18] My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. [19] And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

Meyer's Commentary:

μὴ ἀγαπῶμεν λόγῳ μηδὲ τῇ γλώσσῃ] i.e. “let us not so love that the proof of our love is the outward word or the tongue;” μηδὲ τῇ γλώσσῃ is epexegetically added, in order to mark the externality of the love indicated by λόγῳ ἀγαπᾷν, inasmuch as it points out that by λόγος here only the outward word is meant; it is erroneous to regard γλῶσσα as a climax in so far as “one may love with words (without deeds), but in such a way that the words are nevertheless really and sincerely meant” (Ebrard), for John would not in the very least consider as truly and sincerely meant words of love which remain without corresponding deed. The article serves “to vivify the expression” (Lücke): the tongue as the particular member for expression of the word. It is unnecessary, nay, “contrary to the text” (Düsterdieck), with Beza, Lange, Sander, etc., to supply “μόνον” with ἀγαπῶμεν κ.τ.λ.; for ἀγαπᾷν λόγῳ κ.τ.λ. in itself expresses the mere apparent love.

Note that last line: "t is unnecessary, nay, “contrary to the text” ... to supply “μόνον” with ἀγαπῶμεν κ.τ.λ.; for ἀγαπᾷν λόγῳ κ.τ.λ. in itself expresses the mere apparent love."

In other words, John is saying "let us not love with JUST or ONLY word and speech", and the absence of "only" from the Greek is actually part of the grammatical construction that by other means in the text makes clear that "word and speech" are to be understood as the sole extent of the agape we are NOT to have.

I do not see where the jewelry etc passages are constructed similarly, as if they were saying "let not your adornment be ONLY outward finery", which is what you seem to be suggesting they may be saying.

I'm going to quote from Meyer again:

λόγος and ἔργον are frequently in the N. T. connected with one another, so Luke 24:19; Acts 7:22, and many other passages; in order to bring out the insufficiency of λόγος in 1 Corinthians 4:19-20, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, δύναμις is contrasted with it. By καὶ ἀληθείᾳ the apostle does not mean to add a second element of love, but to characterize the ἀγαπᾷν ἐν ἔργῳ as the true love (so also Myrberg); a love which does not show itself ἐν ἔργῳ is only an apparent love.[232] The relationship of (ἘΝ) ἈΛΗΘΕΊᾼ to ἘΝ ἜΡΓῼ is just the same as that of Τῇ ΓΛΏΣΣῌ to ΛΌΓῼ. The two words of each clause express together one idea, and these two ideas are contrasted with one another, so that it is not to be asked whether λόγῳ corresponds with ἜΡΓῼ, and ΓΛΏΣΣῌ with ἈΛΗΘΕΊᾼ, or ΓΛΏΣΣῌ with ἜΡΓῼ, and ΛΌΓῼ with ἈΛΗΘΕΊᾼ (against Düsterdieck and Braune). With the thought of this verse compare especially Jam 2:15-16; only here the thought is more comprehensive than there.[233]

[231] Braune: “It is to be observed that the first pair in the dative only states the means by which love operates; the preposition ἐν states the element in which it moves.”

[Esaias]

It's been over 12 hours and nobody posting about standards?

2021 is definitely a weird year.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It's been over 12 hours and nobody posting about standards?

2021 is definitely a weird year.

Well . . .

We need to do better!
I’ll see if I can stir things up a bit. You know-revive the Bible study.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by consapente89

No bare legs, should wear panty hoes

I have honestly heard this preached both ways. Ladies should wear panty hose.
Ladies should never wear panty hose.

No wonder it gets confusing.

I’ve also seen it spelled both ways now.