View Full Version : Homosexuality Or Legalism--Which Is Worse?
On another thread, tv1a and RandyWayne are promoting the idea that legalism is worse and more difficult to overcome than homosexuality.
What say ye?
Originally Posted by tv1a
It may be better to cruise the gay bars for a youth pastor before checking out some of the churches for a youth pastor. Won't find much legalism in a gay bar.
This is the beginning of the line of thought.
I posted that I thought it was quite a stretch to prefer homosexuality over legalism.
This was RW's response, and my rebuttal.
Originally Posted by RandyWayne
Why not? The pharisees were the only ones that Jesus got truly angry with.
The spirit of homosexuality denies the power and ored of God and creation itself. In that dimension, it is more akin to the Saducees, who were completely unspiritual. Jesus had NO time for them. The Pharisees He did at least deal with, and salvaged some of them.
You will find nowhere in the Gospels where He spent any time working on a Saducee.
Homosexuality is a far bigger problem to deal with than legalism. At least with a legalist, you have a person who values the Word of God and can be taught.
Generally speaking, homosexuals totally deny the authority of God or His Word.
If this is a common conception--that homosexuality is preferable to legalism--then the movement is in worse shape than I thought.
That is a sick and totally twisted perception.
I do question if legalists can be taught. Without going into detail, I've observed the best legalists make the best homosexuals. I shouldl go through the similarities between homosexuality and legalism, but I don't want to be accused of calling all legalists homosexual.
Sister Alvear
08-26-2007, 01:28 PM
My Jesus help us...
Brett Prince
08-26-2007, 01:30 PM
Again, speak truths about something, but then attach that title concerning that truth to people who do not fit the description, and then you can paint them in a bad line...guilty by association.
I'm sorry. I don't agree with Steve Epley on everything, but I do not see Steve Epley as legalistic. The same goes for Bros. Boyd, Groce, White, etc. Those of you who TRULY believe them to be legalistic DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THEM OR WHERE THEY STAND, HOW THEY VIEW THINGS.
You need to listen rather than label.
Sister Alvear
08-26-2007, 01:30 PM
I really think the question is a little far out. The wording should be changed or something. I feel grieved in my spirit for some reason.
And I am off to church...
OP_Carl
08-26-2007, 01:31 PM
The righteous are scarcely saved.
The legalists are preferable, for there is a chance that at least some of them will not be lost.
None will make heaven from a stool in a gay bar.
I really think the question is a little far out. The wording should be changed or something. I feel grieved in my spirit for some reason.
And I am off to church...
Dearest Sister Alvear,
I regret that you are grieved by this thread.
I was grieved when the assertion was made that "legalists," whatever they are, are worse off than homosexuals.
I wanted to have some serious discussion of the concept that was being espoused.
Please pardon if I was offensive in wording this thread. That was not my intention.
johnmark93
08-26-2007, 01:37 PM
I posted that I thought it was quite a stretch to prefer homosexuality over legalism.
This was RW's response, and my rebuttal.
Originally Posted by RandyWayne
The spirit of homosexuality denies the power and ored of God and creation itself. In that dimension, it is more akin to the Saducees, who were completely unspiritual. Jesus had NO time for them. The Pharisees He did at least deal with, and salvaged some of them.
You will find nowhere in the Gospels where He spent any time working on a Saducee.
Homosexuality is a far bigger problem to deal with than legalism. At least with a legalist, you have a person who values the Word of God and can be taught.
Generally speaking, homosexuals totally deny the authority of God or His Word.
If this is a common conception--that homosexuality is preferable to legalism--then the movement is in worse shape than I thought.
That is a sick and totally twisted perception.
I share your concerns Amos. Romans 1 is a harsh condemnation against those who "turned the truth of God into a lie, worshipped the creature more than the creator, and left the natural use" of the opposite sex. They even went so far as to remove every thought of God from their minds.
I can also see the hideous, soul-crushing effects of legalism as well. Jesus seemed to address the issue of legalism on a fairly regular basis. It was a huge issue in His day. The Pharisees were using legalism as a tool to keep people away from right relationship with God. In this way legalism was perversion of another stripe.
There are similarities and I, for one, would not want to be in a position to defend either sin. Both sins lead to separation from God. The only real difference I see is that homosexuality is a personal choice that primarily affects the consenting parties while legalism can affect entire groups of innocent individuals whose only desire is to attain close proximity to Jesus.
OP_Carl
08-26-2007, 01:40 PM
I do question if legalists can be taught.
Dare we question what it is, in your opinion, legalists ought to be taught?
Without going into detail, An excellent decision.
I've observed the best legalists make the best homosexuals.
"make" = transform into, or "make" = raise up? If you're talking about people who are shallow and completely devoid of understanding beyond their clothesline, I can see your point. The facts on the ground are not usually as stark as they are painted to be when aspersions are cast. Holding fast to old truths strictly can still be done with all power, spirit, and righteousness.
I shouldl go through the similarities between homosexuality and legalism, but I don't want to be accused of calling all legalists homosexual.
Although we could compare your similarities to his, the comparison alone won't make you a Darwinian relative of a chimpanzee. Here, have another banana. :D
RandyWayne
08-26-2007, 01:42 PM
I too agree that the question is a little far out in that it is a bit like asking "Would you rather drink a nice big gulp of sewage from house A? Or a tiny little sip from house B?" We're basically asking whether a BIG gulp is worse then a small sip and what constitutes what.
But going to the meat of the question, I'll stipulate that the "BIG gulp" is better represented by legalism. BOTH sins tend to be of a blinding nature and thus very hard for the sinner to see what they are doing is wrong.....
FRINGE_NUTTER
08-26-2007, 01:44 PM
Who was worse Hitler or Stalin? They were both wrong. As homosexuality and legalism are both wrong. Having the love of God and following his commandments are what save us.
Why mention names? This thread has nothing to do with personalities. I don't know about others, but I had no intentions of naming people in this discussion. This has nothing to do with personalities, but whcih is worse, legalism or homosexuality. I pointed out comparisons not to accuse anyone. That is why I said there are comparisons, but if I were to mention them, I would be accused of calling all legalists homosexuals. There are parallels between legalism and religious tolerance of homosexuality. Let's take the personalities out of the equation and look at this as grown ups.
Why does the word homosexual scare the snot out of us while we accept the word legalism as a term of endearment?
Again, speak truths about something, but then attach that title concerning that truth to people who do not fit the description, and then you can paint them in a bad line...guilty by association.
I'm sorry. I don't agree with Steve Epley on everything, but I do not see Steve Epley as legalistic. The same goes for Bros. Boyd, Groce, White, etc. Those of you who TRULY believe them to be legalistic DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THEM OR WHERE THEY STAND, HOW THEY VIEW THINGS.
You need to listen rather than label.
Praxeas
08-26-2007, 01:47 PM
On another thread, tv1a and RandyWayne are promoting the idea that legalism is worse and more difficult to overcome than homosexuality.
What say ye?
I say that is a pretty stupid statement to make and reeks of hatred :hypercoffee
It was a stretch when it was originally said and it is a stretch now. A massive one.
We live in a time when the very worst sin a man can commit is preach standards; legalism has been set up as the ultimate monster, worse even than gross sexual perversion.
Tell me, you guys on the other side of this issue...would you rather see your son going to an Ultra-Con church, or being a homosexual?
That ought to make it a little easier to dial in on.
A lot of things are fun to theorize about.
Praxeas
08-26-2007, 01:53 PM
Why does the word homosexual scare the snot out of us while we accept the word legalism as a term of endearment?
Nobody here used the word Legalism as a term of endearment. IN fact they are all denying they are legalists...apparently they don't like the term
Praxeas
08-26-2007, 01:55 PM
Maybe we should start a thread and make comparisons between homosexuals and liberals?
I'll pass on the bananna. I can't stand them. If you have grapefruit however.. lol
I don't know if you closely read the post I was referring to that stated legalists can be taught. That was response to that quote.
Again it is a personal observation that the best legalists make the best homosexuals. Some may remember the situation my family went through a couple years back. I care not rehash or open up old wounds. Needless to say it wasn't too much of a stretch to go from legalism to homosexuality.
Holding fast to old truths strictly can still be done with all power, spirit, and righteousness.
A huge AMEN from me. But that's not the point. There is truth and there is opinion. We need to get back to the place where we can differentiate between the two.
Dare we question what it is, in your opinion, legalists ought to be taught?
An excellent decision.
"make" = transform into, or "make" = raise up? If you're talking about people who are shallow and completely devoid of understanding beyond their clothesline, I can see your point. The facts on the ground are not usually as stark as they are painted to be when aspersions are cast. Holding fast to old truths strictly can still be done with all power, spirit, and righteousness.
Although we could compare your similarities to his, the comparison alone won't make you a Darwinian relative of a chimpanzee. Here, have another banana. :D
johnmark93
08-26-2007, 01:57 PM
It was a stretch when it was originally said and it is a stretch now. A massive one.
We live in a time when the very worst sin a man can commit is preach standards; legalism has been set up as the ultimate monster, worse even than gross sexual perversion.
Tell me, you guys on the other side of this issue...would you rather see your son going to an Ultra-Con church, or being a homosexual?
That ought to make it a little easier to dial in on.
A lot of things are fun to theorize about.
Why would a person choose either one? Legalism and homsexuality are equally monstrous.
OP_Carl
08-26-2007, 01:58 PM
I too agree that the question is a little far out in that it is a bit like asking "Would you rather drink a nice big gulp of sewage from house A? Or a tiny little sip from house B?" We're basically asking whether a BIG gulp is worse then a small sip and what constitutes what.
But going to the meat of the question, I'll stipulate that the "BIG gulp" is better represented by legalism. BOTH sins tend to be of a blinding nature and thus very hard for the sinner to see what they are doing is wrong.....
Even if they are highly illustrative, your metaphors stink!
RandyWayne
08-26-2007, 02:00 PM
Just like OUR septic tank..... Good Lord.
Here's the problem
1. Preaching standards is not universal. If by standards one means the preaching of a dress codes were that important, than there would be an universal guide. The way it is now one can go to any number of churches and find a different ''standard" in each congregation.
2. Standards ultimately boils down to the personal tastes and interpretation of the pastor. If he doesn't want television, he'll preach find a Biblical principle to preach against it. If he says internet is okay, he'll find another principle to justify it.
3. Legalism kills a move of God quicker than a Nagasaki Nuke.
4. This is a topic about legalism, not conservatives or liberals. If you want to label legalists go ahead, but we know conservatives who are not legalists. Too bad there aren't enough of them.
It was a stretch when it was originally said and it is a stretch now. A massive one.
We live in a time when the very worst sin a man can commit is preach standards; legalism has been set up as the ultimate monster, worse even than gross sexual perversion.
Tell me, you guys on the other side of this issue...would you rather see your son going to an Ultra-Con church, or being a homosexual?
That ought to make it a little easier to dial in on.
A lot of things are fun to theorize about.
JTULLOCK
08-26-2007, 02:13 PM
On another thread, tv1a and RandyWayne are promoting the idea that legalism is worse and more difficult to overcome than homosexuality.
What say ye?
I think they are both wrong and sinful and damning to hell! :poloroid Just kidding.
I think that is tough to overcome both. I overcame legalism. It can be done! I know people that overcame homosexuality. It can be done too! Though sometimes it is easier to talk to Homosexuals cause they understand that everyone is different whereas the legalist do not understand how anyone can be different than them.
I think legalists are very much at risk for sexual sins. Unrepentant legalists are sinners of the worst stripe....and I think sexual sins are often bred out of it. But there are many who practice a form of conservativism that may have some legalism....but they are living what they believe with an honest heart. I think there is a big difference.
Where were you at the beginning of this thread? Some people have a hard time not taking this as an attack on conservatism. The discussion is about legalism not conservatism.
I think legalists are very much at risk for sexual sins. Unrepentant legalists are sinners of the worst stripe....and I think sexual sins are often bred out of it. But there are many who practice a form of conservativism that may have some legalism....but they are living what they believe with an honest heart. I think there is a big difference.
RandyWayne
08-26-2007, 02:17 PM
Tell me, you guys on the other side of this issue...would you rather see your son going to an Ultra-Con church, or being a homosexual?
I see Amos is great generator of deep thoughts.
For ME it is like asking, would you rather see your son sitting in the court of King Herod or sitting under the teachings of a Pharisee? Neither are good, constructive, or desirable by any stretch, so the question is, What is worse?
Well, again it goes back to the point made many times in the New Testament that the pharisees were the only ones that Jesus got truly angry with. Most likely because they were supposed to know better!
Brett Prince
08-26-2007, 02:22 PM
I think legalists are very much at risk for sexual sins. Unrepentant legalists are sinners of the worst stripe....and I think sexual sins are often bred out of it. But there are many who practice a form of conservativism that may have some legalism....but they are living what they believe with an honest heart. I think there is a big difference.
This is a good post.
Good point made again.
I see Amos is great generator of deep thoughts.
For ME it is like asking, would you rather see your son sitting in the court of King Herod or sitting under the teachings of a Pharisee? Neither are good, constructive, or desirable by any stretch, so the question is, What is worse?
Well, again it goes back to the point made many times in the New Testament that the pharisees were the only ones that Jesus got truly angry with. Most likely because they were supposed to know better!
RevDWW
08-26-2007, 02:40 PM
I think that legalists and homosexuals are different in that legalists are trying to serve God but a homosexual is serving themselves.
Would you rather have someone who serves God and may go overboard in their concept of standards, or have a someone who's only real concern is serving them self?
Legalists are serving something.
I think that legalists and homosexuals are different in that legalists are trying to serve God but a homosexual is serving themselves.
Would you rather have someone who serves God and may go overboard in their concept of standards, or have a someone who's only real concern is serving them self?
RevDWW
08-26-2007, 02:56 PM
Legalists are serving something.
As Bob Dylan sang "You gotta serve somebody, it might be the devil or it might be the Lord, but you're gonna have to serve somebody".
Now have about answering my question.......:nah:nod
You caught me in a rare terse moment. I was trying to be diplomatic. But since you ask, legalists are serving a spirit of control and manipulation. It's got a name, but I've dealt with the spirit in real life. I don't have a desire to deal with it in cyberspace.
As Bob Dylan sang "You gotta serve somebody, it might be the devil or it might be the Lord, but you're gonna have to serve somebody".
Now have about answering my question.......:nah:nod
You caught me in a rare terse moment. I was trying to be diplomatic. But since you ask, legalists are serving a spirit of control and manipulation. It's got a name, but I've dealt with the spirit in real life. I don't have a desire to deal with it in cyberspace.
Very true.
Sheltiedad
08-26-2007, 05:36 PM
Good thing the question isn't, "Who is more pleasant to be around, homosexuals or legalists?". :D
Sister Alvear
08-26-2007, 05:55 PM
How could we decide who is a legalist?
By what standard?
We all KNOW what Homosexuality is but how would we define a legalist? Yes, I know the dictionary might tell us something but I mean among us how would we decide if we wanted too just who is a legalist?
deacon blues
08-26-2007, 06:09 PM
In answer to the original question----sin is sin is sin. There are different severities as to the consequences of sin, but ultimately we don't want to be bound by sin. Whether its perversion OR religiosity, neither is pleasing to the Lord, so quit worrying about which is worse and GO AND SIN NO MORE!!!!!!
Everyone has their own interpretation of apostolic. I think we could come up with a couple million different definitions of legalism.
How could we decide who is a legalist?
By what standard?
We all KNOW what Homosexuality is but how would we define a legalist? Yes, I know the dictionary might tell us something but I mean among us how would we decide if we wanted too just who is a legalist?
It's a no brainer....
Good thing the question isn't, "Who is more pleasant to be around, homosexuals or legalists?". :D
pelathais
08-26-2007, 07:17 PM
... Quoting Amos ....
The spirit of homosexuality denies the power and ored of God and creation itself. In that dimension, it is more akin to the Saducees, who were completely unspiritual. Jesus had NO time for them. The Pharisees He did at least deal with, and salvaged some of them.
You will find nowhere in the Gospels where He spent any time working on a Saducee.
... end Amos quote ...
I share your concerns Amos. Romans 1 is a harsh condemnation against those who "turned the truth of God into a lie, worshipped the creature more than the creator, and left the natural use" of the opposite sex. They even went so far as to remove every thought of God from their minds.
I can also see the hideous, soul-crushing effects of legalism as well. Jesus seemed to address the issue of legalism on a fairly regular basis. It was a huge issue in His day. The Pharisees were using legalism as a tool to keep people away from right relationship with God. In this way legalism was perversion of another stripe.
There are similarities and I, for one, would not want to be in a position to defend either sin. Both sins lead to separation from God. The only real difference I see is that homosexuality is a personal choice that primarily affects the consenting parties while legalism can affect entire groups of innocent individuals whose only desire is to attain close proximity to Jesus.
I don't think Jesus deliberately avoided the Sadducees; they were just more isolated and unavailable than the Pharisees. The Pharisees were also having the greater impact upon the lives of the people.
The Sadducee sect was primarily limited to the Temple hierarchy while the Pharisees had set up a nationwide alternative to the Temple's schools- the synagogue system. Thus the Pharisees were literally everywhere you went in 1st Century Israel. Granted that's a minor point- but important when asking why Jesus didn't spend more time on the Sadducees.
pelathais
08-26-2007, 07:29 PM
It's a no brainer....
Homosexuals are not the driving force behind the Apostolic movement; legalists are. Thus if you've had negative experiences with the Apostolic movement it's only natural to see "legalists" as "more unpleasant" than other groups.
I would submit, that the homosexuals that you have in mind, perhaps coworkers, neighbors, etc; are "more pleasant to be around" simply because they are "more pleasant" individuals. That's why you interact with them in some way- they're nonthreatening and on the job even necessary associations for you.
I further submit that perhaps you have been fortunate enough not to be constantly exposed to the dregs of "gay culture" and "gay activism." There are plenty of homosexuals that I would like to see locked up in the same room as some of our "unpleasant legalists."
I'm just saying...
pelathais
08-26-2007, 07:43 PM
In ancient cultures - and many modern ones, "homosexual behavior" is an important part of the male dominance hierarchy. The "dominant" male in the relationship is not considered "gay" or effeminate. He's a "man's man" and is taking control. In America we see this played out mostly in our prisons. In the Middle East where homosexuality is condemned officially by Islam- the dominant male's behavior is excused while his victims are mocked and condemned.
I think that it is this type of dominance that we all find repugnant when we think of the evils of homosexual behavior. It's simply a twisted way for men to organize themselves. It's abusive, manipulative and controlling. And, the non-sexual manifestations are very similar to what we have seen from our "legalists."
Legalists are abusive, manipulative and controlling. For me, after having spent some time studying anthropology, the legalist is as repulsive as the homosexual. I tend to lump their destructive behaviors together. I often felt defiled after an encounter with a manipulative legalist. I sat in a board meeting once that I could only describe as being akin to a homosexual gang rape.
Anthropologist Ann Druyan (Carl Sagan's widow) describes behaviors among chimpanzees (cannibalism, throwing feces, marking territories, sex for status) that mirror dysfunctional churches.
There are few homosexuals I would love see locked up with some legalists.
I know about gay activsm and gay culture. I know their agenda. Although there may be others who are more knowledgable, I have dialogued with homosexuals. I've worked with homosexuals. I've observed that lifestyle closely. I've asked a lot of questions.
On the other hand, attempting to communicate with a legalist is like a dog attempting to communicate with a fire hydrant. In this case, I'm the fire hydrant.
Homosexuals are not the driving force behind the Apostolic movement; legalists are. Thus if you've had negative experiences with the Apostolic movement it's only natural to see "legalists" as "more unpleasant" than other groups.
I would submit, that the homosexuals that you have in mind, perhaps coworkers, neighbors, etc; are "more pleasant to be around" simply because they are "more pleasant" individuals. That's why you interact with them in some way- they're nonthreatening and on the job even necessary associations for you.
I further submit that perhaps you have been fortunate enough not to be constantly exposed to the dregs of "gay culture" and "gay activism." There are plenty of homosexuals that I would like to see locked up in the same room as some of our "unpleasant legalists."
I'm just saying...
RevDWW
08-26-2007, 08:59 PM
In ancient cultures - and many modern ones, "homosexual behavior" is an important part of the male dominance hierarchy. The "dominant" male in the relationship is not considered "gay" or effeminate. He's a "man's man" and is taking control. In America we see this played out mostly in our prisons. In the Middle East where homosexuality is condemned officially by Islam- the dominant male's behavior is excused while his victims are mocked and condemned.
I think that it is this type of dominance that we all find repugnant when we think of the evils of homosexual behavior. It's simply a twisted way for men to organize themselves. It's abusive, manipulative and controlling. And, the non-sexual manifestations are very similar to what we have seen from our "legalists."
Legalists are abusive, manipulative and controlling. For me, after having spent some time studying anthropology, the legalist is as repulsive as the homosexual. I tend to lump their destructive behaviors together. I often felt defiled after an encounter with a manipulative legalist. I sat in a board meeting once that I could only describe as being akin to a homosexual gang rape.
Anthropologist Ann Druyan (Carl Sagan's widow) describes behaviors among chimpanzees (cannibalism, throwing feces, marking territories, sex for status) that mirror dysfunctional churches.
So you get your views of the Church from a dysfunctional atheist?
If Paul can quote pagan poets in his writings and his sermons, pelathais can cite a dysfunctional athiest. Biblical prinicple already established. No way around it. Someone quoted Bob Dylan (the singer, not the poster) in another post.
So you get your views of the Church from a dysfunctional atheist?
pelathais
08-26-2007, 09:17 PM
So you get your views of the Church from a dysfunctional atheist?
I wouldn't call her "dysfunctional" nor an "atheist." I've only spoken to her over the phone but I've read a couple of her books. I think she can be generally described as a "person of faith." In my current line of work I provide technical support to academics at times. I've been doing this for just a few years.
My views of "the Church," or "the Apostolic movement" is based upon a life long association and full time work within the ministry that covered a couple of decades.
mizpeh
08-26-2007, 09:22 PM
I wouldn't call her "dysfunctional" nor an "atheist." I've only spoken to her over the phone but I've read a couple of her books. In my current line of work I provide technical support to academics at times. I've been doing this for just a few years.
My views of "the Church," or "the Apostolic movement" is based upon a life long association and full time work within the ministry that covered a couple of decades.
Are you not in the ministry anymore?
pelathais
08-26-2007, 09:23 PM
If Paul can quote pagan poets in his writings and his sermons, pelathais can cite a dysfunctional athiest. Biblical prinicple already established. No way around it. Someone quoted Bob Dylan (the singer, not the poster) in another post.
Titus 1:12 - Paul in fact quotes a hymn to the god Zeus. The Cretians had built a tomb for their version of Zeus which greatly offended the Hellenes.
Paul quotes this same hymn in Acts 17:28 and attributes the praise to Zeus to Jesus Christ.
RevDWW
08-26-2007, 09:24 PM
If Paul can quote pagan poets in his writings and his sermons, pelathais can cite a dysfunctional athiest. Biblical prinicple already established. No way around it. Someone quoted Bob Dylan (the singer, not the poster) in another post.
Did I say he couldn't or shouldn't? I'm not the AFF police.....:killinme
I just find it humorous that someone would use info against the church from such a biased source.
Bob Dylan was not an atheist at the time of his writing that song, thought he might be dysfunctional...:heeheehee....we still all gotta serve somebody.....:hanky
RevDWW
08-26-2007, 09:29 PM
I wouldn't call her "dysfunctional" nor an "atheist." I've only spoken to her over the phone but I've read a couple of her books. In my current line of work I provide technical support to academics at times. I've been doing this for just a few years.
My views of "the Church," or "the Apostolic movement" is based upon a life long association and full time work within the ministry that covered a couple of decades.
AAI PRESS RELEASE: January, 15 2004
[for immediate distribution as news report, letter or commentary]
Ann Druyan Joins Stars of Freethought
to Focus on the Real Family
Author-producer Ann Druyan will receive the prestigious Richard Dawkins award as one of the world's outstanding atheists at the AAI convention, April 9-11 in Colorado Springs.http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/news_011504.php (www.atheistalliance.org/library/news_011504.php)
But maybe she has changed since 2004.......
pelathais
08-26-2007, 09:30 PM
Are you not in the ministry anymore?
No. I resigned over a matter that has been discussed here before. BOOMM seems to wisely want me to keep the discussion off of specifics and personalities.
I confess that I still struggle with anger over the whole thing. But this forum has been good therapy for me. Only a little while back RevDWW's statement would have probably triggered a severe rant from me. Now, however, I am able to see beyond the surface of the post and see the human being behind it.
Truth is truth no matter who says it. Religion has the mentality that if we disagree with someone everything they say is in error.
Did I say he couldn't or shouldn't? I'm not the AFF police.....:killinme
I just find it humorous that someone would use info against the church from such a biased source.
Bob Dylan was not an atheist at the time of his writing that song, thought he might be dysfunctional...:heeheehee....we still all gotta serve somebody.....:hanky
pelathais
08-26-2007, 09:35 PM
http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/news_011504.php
But maybe she has changed since 2004.......
Or maybe that link has. I don't get anywhere with it.
My conversations with her were several years back and did not involve any aspect of religion - just technical matters. One of her books seemed to be at least respectful of "religion" in general.
And again, my views on the "the Church" and "the Apostolic movement" were framed from a life long association with Pentecost that happened long before my introduction to science.
RevDWW
08-26-2007, 09:38 PM
Truth is truth no matter who says it. I'm in full agreement with you.
Religion has the mentality that if we disagree with someone everything they say is in error. Religion does not have any mentality, people do. Broad brush statements that would white wash a whole category of people seems prejudicial at best.
RevDWW
08-26-2007, 09:40 PM
Or maybe that link has. I don't get anywhere with it.
My conversations with her were several years back and did not involve any aspect of religion - just technical matters. One of her books seemed to be at least respectful of "religion" in general.
And again, my views on the "the Church" and "the Apostolic movement" were framed from a life long association with Pentecost that happened long before my introduction to science.
My bad. I fixed the link.
So did it take science to show you that some "Pentecostals" are less then Christian and have problems and are imperfect?
We have so many denominations and sub denominations because of intolerance of certain beliefs. Many denominational splits are over superfulous matters. There are a few exceptions, but not many.
I'm in full agreement with you.
Religion does not have any mentality, people do. Broad brush statements that would white wash a whole category of people seems prestigious at best.
RevDWW
08-26-2007, 09:51 PM
We have so many denominations and sub denominations because of intolerance of certain beliefs. Many denominational splits are over superfulous matters. There are a few exceptions, but not many.
Again we agree. :nod
By the way my post should have read prejudicial instead of prestigious.....
pelathais
08-26-2007, 09:55 PM
My bad. I fixed the link.
So did it take science to show you that some "Pentecostals" are less then Christian and have problems and are imperfect?
No. Again, I became dissillusioned with our traditional approach to things long before I found better ways of understanding the world. This was part of my problem- one of despair.
When everything I knew to be "right" was suddenly in question I had no alternatives to replace it with. The rug was completely pulled out from under me and my worldview came crashing down.
I did go through a brief period of exploring atheism and modern existentialism. I would describe that as a period of time looking into inky darkness. It wasn't satisfying emotionally or intellectually. Then my readings of people like Stephen Pinker (formerly MIT recently moved to Harvard "The Blank Slate") and Christian de Dove's ("Vital Dust") kind of brought me full circle again.
The scientific case for Christianity is there, however the "traditional" apologetics that we have used is deficient. Leaning on "scientific creationism" and the newer Moony funded ID movement (The Discovery Institute) will cause your world to come crashing down as well.
After all of that... In answer to your question, it took science to build up my faith after it was shattered by "some "Pentecostals"".
mizpeh
08-26-2007, 10:10 PM
No. Again, I became dissillusioned with our traditional approach to things long before I found better ways of understanding the world. This was part of my problem- one of despair.
When everything I knew to be "right" was suddenly in question I had no alternatives to replace it with. The rug was completely pulled out from under me and my worldview came crashing down.
I did go through a brief period of exploring atheism and modern existentialism. I would describe that as a period of time looking into inky darkness. It wasn't satisfying emotionally or intellectually. Then my readings of people like Stephen Pinker (formerly MIT recently moved to Harvard "The Blank Slate") and Christian de Dove's ("Vital Dust") kind of brought me full circle again.
The scientific case for Christianity is there, however the "traditional" apologetics that we have used is deficient. Leaning on "scientific creationism" and the newer Moony funded ID movement (The Discovery Institute) will cause your world to come crashing down as well.
After all of that... In answer to your question, it took science to build up my faith after it was shattered by "some "Pentecostals"".
Was it your lack of trust in God or your trust in men that was the root of the collapse when the rug was pulled out from under you?
Why don't you think the Intelligent Design movement has a legit case?
Care to give a brief description of each book?
No. Again, I became dissillusioned with our traditional approach to things long before I found better ways of understanding the world. This was part of my problem- one of despair.
When everything I knew to be "right" was suddenly in question I had no alternatives to replace it with. The rug was completely pulled out from under me and my worldview came crashing down.
I did go through a brief period of exploring atheism and modern existentialism. I would describe that as a period of time looking into inky darkness. It wasn't satisfying emotionally or intellectually. Then my readings of people like Stephen Pinker (formerly MIT recently moved to Harvard "The Blank Slate") and Christian de Dove's ("Vital Dust") kind of brought me full circle again.
The scientific case for Christianity is there, however the "traditional" apologetics that we have used is deficient. Leaning on "scientific creationism" and the newer Moony funded ID movement (The Discovery Institute) will cause your world to come crashing down as well.
After all of that... In answer to your question, it took science to build up my faith after it was shattered by "some "Pentecostals"".
pelathais
08-26-2007, 10:31 PM
Was it your lack of trust in God or your trust in men that was the root of the collapse when the rug was pulled out from under you?
To be entirely candid, it was probably both, though at the time and for a few years on I would have answered differently.
The problem with my "faith in God" was that I was re-evaluating my whole worldview at the time. My problem with my "trust in men" was complicated by my own insistence that I remain "under submission" to my leaders. This also caused me to remain silent when I should have spoken out. However, if I had sponken out at the time, my case would probably be one of those things that anti-Apostolics would throw in your face on boards like this.
Why don't you think the Intelligent Design movement has a legit case?
That would take a few volumes, let me try with my response to tv1a.
pelathais
08-26-2007, 10:35 PM
My bad. I fixed the link.
So did it take science to show you that some "Pentecostals" are less then Christian and have problems and are imperfect?
Wow! And she's on the board of NORML? She's become quite the activist now. Carl must have been a real steadying influence on her.
But her observations from two decades ago seem to still be relevant. Human beings do have a component within them that is analogous to "animal nature." And it's not just a "sin nature" because it does involve "good" behaviors like alturism.
mizpeh
08-26-2007, 10:51 PM
Wow! And she's on the board of NORML? She's become quite the activist now. Carl must have been a real steadying influence on her.
But her observations from two decades ago seem to still be relevant. Human beings do have a component within them that is analogous to "animal nature." And it's not just a "sin nature" because it does involve "good" behaviors like alturism.
Would that component be more akin to a conscience and the ability to know good from evil? We, as humans in general, want to do good but the Bible teaches us that evil is present with us and without Christ the sin that is in our flesh usually gets the best of us. Do animals behave altruistically? :nah
pelathais
08-26-2007, 10:56 PM
Care to give a brief description of each book?
In The Blank Slate, Pinker sets about to debunk 3 "myths" that are generally accepted without question in academia. This book is a follow up to his "How the Mind Works."
Pinkers own words on the three myths:
Pinker (2002): The blank slate is the doctrine that the mind has no unique structure and that its entire organization comes from the environment via socialization and learning. The blank slate mentality is popular with people who believe that any human trait can be altered with the right changes in social institutions. It's popular in the more radical branches of feminism, although not with the original core of feminism that stressed the drive for equity between the sexes. I think it allies to some degree with Marxist approaches to society. Not that Marx literally believed in a blank slate, but he certainly believed that you could not intelligently discuss human nature separate from its ever-changing interaction with the social environment. (pelathais: "Think of Rouseau's 'Tabula Rasa.'")
The doctrine of the noble savage is that people have no evil impulses, that all malice is a product of social institutions. The noble savage myth is behind the sensibility that violence is learned behavior, a slogan that is repeated endlessly whenever violence is chronicled in the news. It's also behind the Romantic idea that violent nonconformists are actually seeing the hypocrisy of society and challenging social institutions from a marginalized viewpoint, as opposed to the idea that such people are psychopaths and that we should prevent them from wreaking havoc on everyone else."
Me again:
In addressing the first two "myths" he basically debunks the whole "multicultural" agenda as well as situational ethics and cultural relativism.
You should be aware that his "third" myth, "the ghost in the machine" doesn't take into account more recent findings (http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/soul-search/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=) about the human "soul" and the human mind. Pinker himself never touched on the quantum aspects of neurological function.
This is still a very new field of understanding. Basically, for our brains to work they not only utilize chemical reactions within the cells- but there are quatum reactions within the neurons as well. Of course, once you enter the quatum realm, physical chemistry no longer applies and we are dealing with profound mysteries.
But here is Pinker's statement (now proven to be somewhat dated) on the "3rd myth:"
"The doctrine of the ghost in the machine is that people are inhabited by an immaterial soul that is the locus of free will and choice and which can't be reduced to a function of the brain. The ghost in the machine [idea] lies behind the religious and cultural right -- literally in the case of people who want to couch the stem cell debate in terms of when ensoulment occurs."
More on De Duve...
pelathais
08-26-2007, 11:00 PM
I especially like his statement, "It's also behind the Romantic idea that violent nonconformists are actually seeing the hypocrisy of society and challenging social institutions from a marginalized viewpoint, as opposed to the idea that such people are psychopaths and that we should prevent them from wreaking havoc on everyone else."
This is the approach we should be following when dealing with terrorists and rogue states. Is Academia is catching up with reality here?
pelathais
08-26-2007, 11:06 PM
On the book "Vital Dust" by Christian De Duve (I inadvertently anglicized his name in an earlier post) I do not recommend that you buy the book unless you're up for a hearty challenge. It took me over 2 years to read 285 pages. I kept having to put the book down and try and learn what he was talking about. It's rather detailed and I don't come from a very scientific background.
But go into a B&N bookstore or some such establishment and read the final chapter - The Meaning of Life. De Duve is Belgian and once headed the Pasteur Institute in Paris. From the last chapter I hope you will see why I think it appropriate that his given name can be translated as "Christian of the Dove."
mizpeh
08-26-2007, 11:10 PM
Pelathais,
Is Pinker saying the human mind and soul are different things? Is he equating the mind with the brain?
pelathais
08-26-2007, 11:26 PM
Would that component be more akin to a conscience and the ability to know good from evil? We, as humans in general, want to do good but the Bible teaches us that evil is present with us and without Christ the sin that is in our flesh usually gets the best of us. Do animals behave altruistically?
Yes. She-bears will allow themselves to be torn apart to allow their cubs to escape. Ants will sacrifice themselves to protect a tree in which their colony nests. It would be hard to attribute human like emotions to the ants- but their hive behavior displays adaptivity that almost speaks of "wisdom."
And I probably didn't really answer your question about my criticizing the ID movement very well. I just don't trust the Moonies; and their involvement through Jonathan Wells and behind the scenes at the Discovery Institute makes me feel uncomfortable.
Michael Behe's arguments about "irreducible complexity" don't stand up to scrutiny. The whole Young Earth side of the movement is overcome by crackpots, criminals and embarrassing attempts at science.
Put yourself in my place at one time: You are to speak in front of several hundred people and follow that up with radio interviews and local talk shows. The material that you must defend as being honest and scientific comes from the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. Go through that material and put your reputation and ministry on the line with it. You honestly have to be either:
1) A dishonest huckster who can sell anything without a conscience.
2) So unlearned that you can't really even read the material but you did look at the pictures.
3) Under some sort of spiritual deception that I can only speculate about.
And by "you" I of course don't mean "you, Mizpeh." http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
pelathais
08-26-2007, 11:34 PM
Pelathais,
Is Pinker saying the human mind and soul are different things? Is he equating the mind with the brain?
What I understand him to be saying on the "ghost in the machine" is that the "soul" doesn't exist apart from the neuro-chemical reactions within the nervous system. He seems to be saying that when those chemical processes stop- there is no "soul" left to function.
It was on this point that I was suggesting that his quote from 2002 may not be up to date with some more recent findings (that I linked to earlier).
In other words, while I am very much in agreement with him about everything else, I think that there's more to the human soul than chemistry. I actively promote his views on the myths of the Blank Slate and the Noble Savage while holding out that we don't really understand enough about the "ghost in the machine."
It was those views of his that influenced me back toward faith in Christ, along with Christian De Duve.
mizpeh
08-27-2007, 12:22 AM
Yes. She-bears will allow themselves to be torn apart to allow their cubs to escape. Ants will sacrifice themselves to protect a tree in which their colony nests. It would be hard to attribute human like emotions to the ants- but their hive behavior displays adaptivity that almost speaks of "wisdom."
And I probably didn't really answer your question about my criticizing the ID movement very well. I just don't trust the Moonies; and their involvement through Jonathan Wells and behind the scenes at the Discovery Institute makes me feel uncomfortable.
Michael Behe's arguments about "irreducible complexity" don't stand up to scrutiny. The whole Young Earth side of the movement is overcome by crackpots, criminals and embarrassing attempts at science.
Put yourself in my place at one time: You are to speak in front of several hundred people and follow that up with radio interviews and local talk shows. The material that you must defend as being honest and scientific comes from the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. Go through that material and put your reputation and ministry on the line with it. You honestly have to be either:
1) A dishonest huckster who can sell anything without a conscience.
2) So unlearned that you can't really even read the material but you did look at the pictures.
3) Under some sort of spiritual deception that I can only speculate about.
And by "you" I of course don't mean "you, Mizpeh." http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Thanks for being clear but I didn't take "you" as meaning me personally.
I was an atheist at one time. :roseglasses The delusion of atheism is a very strong demonic deception.
Common sense points to an intelligent creator as does the scriptures. Every house is built by some man, but he that made all things is God. It makes sense that when we look at things as complex as the human body, that we should deduce that its intricate design calls for a designer and not just happen stance. Disorder is the state that natural things resort to if not tended to. Houses fall into disrepair, civilizations becomes barbaric without law and government, gardens become overgrown and wild.....does anything good and orderly come out of an explosion? ie: the big bang? Do natural laws come about through destruction?
The heavens declare His glory. His handiwork is seen all around us. The wise among us understand God by the things He has made and are able to discern his ways by watching what happens to the wicked and the righteous. I never noticed these things before becoming a Christian because I was blinded and deceived. It's amazing the clarity of mind that comes when you find the truth, Jesus Christ.
I just bought Behe's book a couple of weeks ago so I can read for myself what the arguments on ID are. :hypercoffee
Felicity
08-27-2007, 12:38 AM
In ancient cultures - and many modern ones, "homosexual behavior" is an important part of the male dominance hierarchy. The "dominant" male in the relationship is not considered "gay" or effeminate. He's a "man's man" and is taking control. In America we see this played out mostly in our prisons. In the Middle East where homosexuality is condemned officially by Islam- the dominant male's behavior is excused while his victims are mocked and condemned.
I think that it is this type of dominance that we all find repugnant when we think of the evils of homosexual behavior. It's simply a twisted way for men to organize themselves. It's abusive, manipulative and controlling. And, the non-sexual manifestations are very similar to what we have seen from our "legalists."
Legalists are abusive, manipulative and controlling. For me, after having spent some time studying anthropology, the legalist is as repulsive as the homosexual. I tend to lump their destructive behaviors together. I often felt defiled after an encounter with a manipulative legalist. I sat in a board meeting once that I could only describe as being akin to a homosexual gang rape.
Anthropologist Ann Druyan (Carl Sagan's widow) describes behaviors among chimpanzees (cannibalism, throwing feces, marking territories, sex for status) that mirror dysfunctional churches.Good heavens Pelathais. That's a pretty graphic and disgusting picture/analogy you paint there!
pelathais
08-27-2007, 12:56 AM
... Disorder is the state that natural things resort to if not tended to. Houses fall into disrepair, civilizations becomes barbaric without law and government, gardens become overgrown and wild.....does anything good and orderly come out of an explosion? ie: the big bang? Do natural laws come about through destruction?
Just a quibble here, but an important one; the "Big Bang" was not an explosion. The phrase itself was popularized by Sir Fred Hoyle who didn't believe the universe had a beginning. Along with his astronomy, Sir Fred was a lover of the Vedic literature of India and of course the Hindu faith stated that there was no creation event; just Rama being and begetting over and over again. The phrase was coined and used at first by critics of the idea that there even was a Genesis-like beginning. Those who repeat that notion are in fact repeating an outdated atheistic argument; or an argument that was minted out of sympathies for non-Christian faiths.
The "Big Bang" event was an expansion or unfolding of space over time - something that continues to happen even as we speak. Space itself is expanding. This phenomenon is not analogous to an explosion where things are scattered randomly. In fact, the matter within that space is forming and interacting along very specific patterns. Thus the "walls" of galaxies in space are filaments of matter reaching out and clumping together like cobwebs, or human neurons, depending on how romantic you want to be.
The "Big Bang" might be better understood as the "Big Bloom," think of the way a flower's petals unfold.
pelathais
08-27-2007, 01:04 AM
Good heavens Pelathais. That's a pretty graphic and disgusting picture/analogy you paint there!
I did it again. I'm sorry, but that's they way it felt. Men humiliating and abusing other men for the purpose of attaining a higher status within the tribe; what else do you compare it to?
Are there any other ancient patterns of behavior into which we might sort this phenomenon?
Berkley
08-27-2007, 02:57 AM
is
this
thread
for
real????
Good heavens Pelathais. That's a pretty graphic and disgusting picture/analogy you paint there!
I have sat through an ugly board meeting or two myself, but to compare them with homosexual gang rape is utterly ridiculous.
There is no comparison.
Other stronger words come to mind, but I will refrain.
mizpeh
08-27-2007, 06:55 AM
I did it again. I'm sorry, but that's they way it felt. Men humiliating and abusing other men for the purpose of attaining a higher status within the tribe; what else do you compare it to?
Are there any other ancient patterns of behavior into which we might sort this phenomenon?
Political struggles for power. The Democratic and Republican parties.
Ancient patterns? The nation of Israel after the split from Judah. The throne wasn't always inherited but overthrown by someone seeking a higher status.
mizpeh
08-27-2007, 07:01 AM
I have sat through an ugly board meeting or two myself, but to compare them with homosexual gang rape is utterly ridiculous.
There is no comparison.
Other stronger words come to mind, but I will refrain.
He's comparing the underlying attitudes. The desires that are driving the actions. I agree with him to a point because not all deviant sexual behavior is violent or ruled by the same passion.
There are different types of abuse such as physical and mental. A similar analogy to homosexual gang rape and an ugly board meeting might be something like physical abuse of a wife is worse than mental abuse. I'm not so sure because I've experienced mental abuse and the torment and pain is different but IMO just as painful. The main difference is mental abuse leaves scars that can't be seen.
OP_Carl
08-27-2007, 07:06 AM
I have sat through an ugly board meeting or two myself, but to compare them with homosexual gang rape is utterly ridiculous.
A ridiculous assertion on a ridiculous thread? :faint
Shiver me timbers! :rolleyes2
mizpeh
08-27-2007, 07:08 AM
Just a quibble here, but an important one; the "Big Bang" was not an explosion. The phrase itself was popularized by Sir Fred Hoyle who didn't believe the universe had a beginning. Along with his astronomy, Sir Fred was a lover of the Vedic literature of India and of course the Hindu faith stated that there was no creation event; just Rama being and begetting over and over again. The phrase was coined and used at first by critics of the idea that there even was a Genesis-like beginning. Those who repeat that notion are in fact repeating an outdated atheistic argument; or an argument that was minted out of sympathies for non-Christian faiths.
The "Big Bang" event was an expansion or unfolding of space over time - something that continues to happen even as we speak. Space itself is expanding. This phenomenon is not analogous to an explosion where things are scattered randomly. In fact, the matter within that space is forming and interacting along very specific patterns. Thus the "walls" of galaxies in space are filaments of matter reaching out and clumping together like cobwebs, or human neurons, depending on how romantic you want to be.
The "Big Bang" might be better understood as the "Big Bloom," think of the way a flower's petals unfold.
I've never heard it put that way. It still lacks a beginning of matter. For specific patterns (laws) to develop for this expansion, much like a complex living organism that develops from basic cellular division with structure and cohesion rather than randomness, IMO, points to a designer.
DividedThigh
08-27-2007, 08:30 AM
it is a ridiculous thread, sin is sin, it is all bad, no degrees, none of it legalism and homo included are any diff in the eyes of god, have mercy jesus, dt:hypercoffee:telephone
Felicity
08-27-2007, 08:36 AM
I did it again. I'm sorry, but that's they way it felt. Men humiliating and abusing other men for the purpose of attaining a higher status within the tribe; what else do you compare it to?
Are there any other ancient patterns of behavior into which we might sort this phenomenon?I can think of other analogies - sure. Humiliation and abuse tactics to gain control and status have been around pretty much since the beginning of time.
I did it again. I'm sorry, but that's they way it felt. Men humiliating and abusing other men for the purpose of attaining a higher status within the tribe; what else do you compare it to?
Are there any other ancient patterns of behavior into which we might sort this phenomenon?
The crusades?
Eastern rulers killing their borthers to elimnate rivals?
Phillip and the Pope killing off the Knights Templair?
Fudalism?
The Cast system in India?
Svengali?
the Bolshevic revolution?
Linin and Trotski?
Pope/Anti-Pope?
Mohammad?
The human race has always had those who wished to control and used what ever means necessary to do so. it has nothing to do with the perversion of homosexuality.
you must have studied antropology at U. C. Berkley.
Felicity
08-27-2007, 09:10 AM
The crusades?
Eastern rulers killing their borthers to elimnate rivals?
Phillip and the Pope killing off the Knights Templair?
Fudalism?
The Cast system in India?
Svengali?
the Bolshevic revolution?
Linin and Trotski?
Pope/Anti-Pope?
Mohammad?
The human race has always had those who wished to control and used what ever means necessary to do so. it has nothing to do with the perversion of homosexuality.
you must have studied antropology at U. C. Berkley.Aha! Somebody has their thinking cap on this morning! :thumbsup
The first one on your list was on the top of mine as well.
Aha! Somebody has their thinking cap on this morning! :thumbsup
The first one on your list was on the top of mine as well.
Of course you and Ferd make loads of sense.
But you have to keep in mind the fact that it is immensely more satisfying to a bitter person to compare Apostolic preachers to a bunch of homosexual rapists.
pelathais
08-27-2007, 06:23 PM
Of course you and Ferd make loads of sense.
But you have to keep in mind the fact that it is immensely more satisfying to a bitter person to compare Apostolic preachers to a bunch of homosexual rapists.
I don't think that the small group dynamics such as the one to which I referred can be compared to large scale enterprises like the Crusades, etc. This is more man-on-man; up close and in your face type of abuse. No doubt that the Crusades involved a lot of personal encounters and crimes - to say "the Crusades" or some of the other large scale dramas is not analogous.
On the point of my "bitterness" I would contend that such dismissals are frequently useful to those in power in order that they may continue the oppression. When I was still with the UPC and I spoke out about abuses the immediate response was that I must be "bitter." That seems to have become our catch phrase for dealing with unpleasant issues. We just say that the person who brings us the unpleasant news is "bitter" and we turn away.
The writer for the story at the start of this thread could be said to display bitterness by including graphic descriptions of the crime. Even the victim could be "bitter" for bringing the whole thing up. The one who posted the story may have done so out of "bitterness," why else would you bring it up? So it seems that there is a lot of "bitterness."
Meanwhile abusive systems remain in place. Sometimes things do come out into the open, but each time they do we are sure to hear that the ones shining the light on the abuse are "bitter."
Your frank dismissal shows me that you may have bitterness that you too are dealing with. As a fellow traveller I would like to encourage you. Speak out and reach out. Don't be satisfied with mere catch phrases. There is true progress that we can make if we honestly and completely open ourselves to Christ.
Maybe we should discuss how the Jezebel spirit controls legalism. Tons of unmined material there... lol
I did it again. I'm sorry, but that's they way it felt. Men humiliating and abusing other men for the purpose of attaining a higher status within the tribe; what else do you compare it to?
Are there any other ancient patterns of behavior into which we might sort this phenomenon?
Sister Alvear
08-27-2007, 10:19 PM
abuse has always existed and always will until the Better Day...
Praxeas
08-27-2007, 10:22 PM
le·gal·ism
–noun 1.strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, esp. to the letter rather than the spirit. 2.Theology. a.the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works. b.the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.
I fail to see the comparison with homosexuality
Felicity
08-27-2007, 10:27 PM
I don't think that the small group dynamics such as the one to which I referred can be compared to large scale enterprises like the Crusades, etc. This is more man-on-man; up close and in your face type of abuse. No doubt that the Crusades involved a lot of personal encounters and crimes - to say "the Crusades" or some of the other large scale dramas is not analogous. Okay, point taken. Perhaps the crusade analogy isn't the best but the one you used seemed quite extreme and very graphic to me and one that I can't identify with and really don't want to have to even think about it in order to try and identify with the comparison you're making.
Anyhow ....
Sometimes we have to be abased. It's part of the human experience. Certainly Jesus was and certainly Paul was and he testified to it too.
We survive these things and come out better for it if we're committed to keeping our heart and spirit right.
Fireside
08-27-2007, 10:29 PM
Okay, point taken. Perhaps the crusade analogy isn't the best but the one you used seemed quite extreme and very graphic to me and one that I can't identify with and really don't want to have to even think about it in order to try and identify with the comparison you're making.
Anyhow ....
Sometimes we have to be abased. It's part of the human experience. Certainly Jesus was and certainly Paul was and he testified to it too.
We survive these things and come out better for it if we're committed to keeping our heart and spirit right.
The voice of common sense at last.
The definition is faulty because legalism is event driven not principle driven. A legalist thinks it's television is pure evil, but the internet is okay even though pornography is easier to get on the internet than on television.
THere are similarities between homosexuality and legalism. The definition you propose is a lofty ideal which will never be acheived because there is always a human element involved.
le·gal·ism
–noun 1.strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, esp. to the letter rather than the spirit. 2.Theology. a.the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works. b.the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.
I fail to see the comparison with homosexuality
...We survive these things and come out better for it if we're committed to keeping our heart and spirit right.
And if not we become obsessed. We become accusers. We become motivated by wounds and hurts - something very different from love.
Eventually, we ourselves end up as the spear throwers.
pelathais
08-28-2007, 02:01 AM
The voice of common sense at last.
"At last...?" I think you've just fallen into this thread. (Or been enmired, ensnared?)
Felicity has been here with her wisdom and Christian witness throughout. I feel like I'm a better person just listening to her. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Berkley
08-28-2007, 02:04 AM
What a ridiculous thread!!
pelathais
08-28-2007, 02:18 AM
The definition is faulty because legalism is event driven not principle driven. A legalist thinks it's television is pure evil, but the internet is okay even though pornography is easier to get on the internet than on television.
THere are similarities between homosexuality and legalism. The definition you propose is a lofty ideal which will never be acheived because there is always a human element involved.
I think we can see that its very human for us to try and protect and justify ourselves and our behaviors. I've known gays who were tormented by the need to justify themselves.
Is this "self justification" something you see also in "legalists?" (I tried to show that possible link earlier). Maybe the real link is that both are human beings. Perhaps both groups include people that we've cared for and who have hurt us.
We all have practiced the "love the sinner but hate the sin" with gays, alcoholics, drug addicts and 'garden variety sinners.' We know what the tension is like when you open yourself and make yourself vulnerable to someone who will probably dissappoint you and all of your prayers for them.
Can you translate that experience into one in which you are dealing with a "legalist?" It's difficult because they profess to be "saved." You must make yourself just as vulnerable and be ready to be just as hurt. Only difference is that after they have trode upon you, the legalist will then often climb into a pulpit or into some other place of authority and announce how that it was "God" who just walked all over you.
I think a religious movement has matured when the greatest number of its adherents recognize this kind of error when it happens; and they stop supporting the structures that abuse.
I experienced the darkside of legalism. I've seen it destroy many good men. They either became the monster legalism creates or they walk away from God.
Legalism is a spirit of oppression. That's why Jesus was harder on the pharisees than the prostitutes. He realized the oppressive nature of legalism. That's why he told the prostitue to sin no more. He couldn't find a pharisee to accuse her once the tables were turned.
I think we can see that its very human for us to try and protect and justify ourselves and our behaviors. I've known gays who were tormented by the need to justify themselves.
Is this "self justification" something you see also in "legalists?" (I tried to show that possible link earlier). Maybe the real link is that both are human beings. Perhaps both groups include people that we've cared for and who have hurt us.
We all have practiced the "love the sinner but hate the sin" with gays, alcoholics, drug addicts and 'garden variety sinners.' We know what the tension is like when you open yourself and make yourself vulnerable to someone who will probably dissappoint you and all of your prayers for them.
Can you translate that experience into one in which you are dealing with a "legalist?" It's difficult because they profess to be "saved." You must make yourself just as vulnerable and be ready to be just as hurt. Only difference is that after they have trode upon you, the legalist will then often climb into a pulpit or into some other place of authority and announce how that it was "God" who just walked all over you.
I think a religious movement has matured when the greatest number of its adherents recognize this kind of error when it happens; and they stop supporting the structures that abuse.
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 06:46 AM
On another thread, tv1a and RandyWayne are promoting the idea that legalism is worse and more difficult to overcome than homosexuality.
What say ye?
Why did they do that? First off what did they define as a legalist? Are they legalists?
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 07:19 AM
I experienced the darkside of legalism.
Was this only in one area of the world or are you speaking from a view point of having experienced "legalism" across the globe in many different areas.
Would you say that you are an expert on the darkside of legalism or just an expert on the "darkside," period?
I've seen it destroy many good men.
How many "good" men? Did you know these "good" men personally; if so how many of these "good" men did you personally know get destroyed?
They either became the monster legalism creates
Becoming a monster? Like Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, and Benny Hinn? Is that what you call legalist?
or they walk away from God.
Can you define walking away from God?
Legalism is a spirit of oppression.
Would you say a well-known ex-Pentecostal music teacher who exposes himself to a young person in a public restroom under a spirit of oppression?
Would you consider an individual like that a legalist?
That's why Jesus was harder on the pharisees than the prostitutes.
Jesus was hard on un-repentant religious hypocrites.
He realized the oppressive nature of legalism.
More like Jesus understood a hypocrite when he saw one. One who claimed to love God and knew all the jargon (Jesus looked just like a Pharisee so clothes weren't the problem in the first century) but denied God by their actions.
That's why he told the prostitue to sin no more. He couldn't find a pharisee to accuse her once the tables were turned.
Remember the ones who brought the woman (we are never told she was a prostitute) they told Jesus she was caught in the very act of adultery.
This is important because a true witness (according to the Jewish Sages) had to be a witness who caught the accused in the "very act" of the crime.
These witnesses had to be at least two and a third would make the testimony fully established. Those who caught the person in the "very act" had to be the first one to cast the stone, or put the accused to death. Jesus asking for the first stone to be cast by he who is without sin is calling on those who caught the woman in the "very act" to make their judgment of execution. Where was the man who (by Torah law) needed to be present?
Remember this woman was caught in the "very act" and yet we have no man? Could it be that Jesus was writing down the name of that man? The man who was in the "act" with the woman? The man who was the second witness? What this example shows us is a hypocrite’s zeal to go to any length to trip up a son of God.
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 07:56 AM
The definition is faulty because legalism is event driven not principle driven.
Where did you find your definition of legalism? One needs to watch carefully to how they interpret because if one doesn't seek a balance they can go into Antinomianism.
A legalist thinks it's television is pure evil, but the internet is okay even though pornography is easier to get on the internet than on television.
I don't watch television so I don't know what's on it anymore. I am told that Pentecostals who own televisions only watch the news and animal planet.
Have you ever been in Barnes and Noble book store?
THere are similarities between homosexuality and legalism.
Since you have claimed expertise with Legalism, what is your expertise with homosexuality? How do sexual perverts and pedophiles resemble legalists?
The definition you propose is a lofty ideal which will never be acheived because there is always a human element involved.
Could you explain this though further?
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com
I don't think that the small group dynamics such as the one to which I referred can be compared to large scale enterprises like the Crusades, etc. This is more man-on-man; up close and in your face type of abuse. No doubt that the Crusades involved a lot of personal encounters and crimes - to say "the Crusades" or some of the other large scale dramas is not analogous.
On the point of my "bitterness" I would contend that such dismissals are frequently useful to those in power in order that they may continue the oppression. When I was still with the UPC and I spoke out about abuses the immediate response was that I must be "bitter." That seems to have become our catch phrase for dealing with unpleasant issues. We just say that the person who brings us the unpleasant news is "bitter" and we turn away.
The writer for the story at the start of this thread could be said to display bitterness by including graphic descriptions of the crime. Even the victim could be "bitter" for bringing the whole thing up. The one who posted the story may have done so out of "bitterness," why else would you bring it up? So it seems that there is a lot of "bitterness."
Meanwhile abusive systems remain in place. Sometimes things do come out into the open, but each time they do we are sure to hear that the ones shining the light on the abuse are "bitter."
Your frank dismissal shows me that you may have bitterness that you too are dealing with. As a fellow traveller I would like to encourage you. Speak out and reach out. Don't be satisfied with mere catch phrases. There is true progress that we can make if we honestly and completely open ourselves to Christ.
I think the Crusades are a great example of the kind of excess men will go to in order to bring power to themselves. It is much more closely realated to what one might call "legalism" than homosexual gang rape.
good grief. but if you dont like that one Linin and Trotski clearly fit your wacky man on man type incounter.... much better than the macho gay fest.
once again, where did you do this Anthropological study? UC Berkley? or some other Marxist/feminist/post moderern liberal arts school? You really need to un-learn some stuff.
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 08:03 AM
The crusades?
Eastern rulers killing their borthers to elimnate rivals?
Phillip and the Pope killing off the Knights Templair?
Fudalism?
The Cast system in India?
Svengali?
the Bolshevic revolution?
Linin and Trotski?
Pope/Anti-Pope?
Mohammad?
The human race has always had those who wished to control and used what ever means necessary to do so. it has nothing to do with the perversion of homosexuality.
you must have studied antropology at U. C. Berkley.
Give that man a pound of boudin from Richard's Meat Market in Abbeville!
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 08:39 AM
Has anyone here ever heard the Jonestown Death Tape (FBI No. Q 042)?
Here is a group that was into manipulation. Is that legalism? Would that fit the idea when a Pentecostal thinks of legalism? When legalism is mentioned most automatically think of clothes? Legalism is something that goes way beyond what a Pentecostal thinks legalism to be?
When I think if legalism in Oneness Pentecostalism, I think of the stories we have all heard about pastors who make their members bring their pay checks to the church to get cashed and deduct 10%.
Pastors who detail exactly what kind of socs/shoes/panty hose, type of underware and other over stuff like that.
Pastors who order divorces, tell young people who they can marry, tell parents they cannot talk to children who have left that particular assymbly.
Pastors who tell people they are going to hell if they dont faithfully attend THAT one particular church
I do not think a preacher who teaches standards is a legalist.
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 09:33 AM
When I think if legalism in Oneness Pentecostalism, I think of the stories we have all heard about pastors who make their members bring their pay checks to the church to get cashed and deduct 10%.
Wouldn't that be more like Dictatorship? Lording over God's heritage.
Pastors who detail exactly what kind of socs/shoes/panty hose, type of underware and other over stuff like that.
What about the accountability of both parties? You have a man who has misused his position and people who are following obediently?
Pastors who order divorces,
Jim Jones ordered the deaths of people's infants. If you listen to the death tape those people are very enthusiastic in their wanting to kill themselves.
The individuals who would listen to anyone pastor, doctor, lawyer, in-law, parent, to divorce never cared much about their marriage in the first place.
People who roll over that easy have a long record of being in controlled situations their whole life.
tell young people who they can marry, tell parents they cannot talk to children who have left that particular assymbly.
I would like to say, that in some situations it would not be advisable to offer advise that would lead into a bad marriage. If someone is going to be counseled for pre-marriage, and the preacher orders them NOT to get married, then that preacher is over stepping his boundaries. We are not God men, but men of God. Dictatorships and Pulpits don't work towards the will of God.
Pastors who tell people they are going to hell if they dont faithfully attend THAT one particular church.
Could you explain this thought a little further?
I do not think a preacher who teaches standards is a legalist.
:kittyhug
Esther
08-28-2007, 10:04 AM
On another thread, tv1a and RandyWayne are promoting the idea that legalism is worse and more difficult to overcome than homosexuality.
What say ye?
I can't think of anything much worse than homosexuality, to be honest.
Timmy
08-28-2007, 10:24 AM
I can't think of anything much worse than homosexuality, to be honest.
Really? I can think of lots of things "much worse". The stigma attached to homosexuality in the Christian community, I think, has more to do with our culture and upbringing than any kind of inherent wickedness of the practice itself. Yes, there is scripture condemning it. But why? I can see the logic in forbidding many things, such as murder, incest, rape, lying, stealing, etc. But homosexuality is different. It seems to be a law for the sake of itself. A test, just to see if we obey, perhaps?
The whole thing about it being a "threat" to the family: I don't buy it. How does it harm my family, if two men down the street are "married" or living together? Nothing they do, in the privacy of their home, can possibly prevent me from having a healthy, monogamous, heterosexual relationship with my wife. Those guys are no threat, whatsoever.
Yes, the activists can get carried away, but it's no more than an annoyance, unless they rioted or something. That's another matter, and it's wrong for good reason. But if they get laws passed allowing gay marriage, so what? It doesn't force me to become gay! Seriously, I don't get the outrage or the alarm. Or why it's so incredibly evil. Someone explain it to me.
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 10:24 AM
I can't think of anything much worse than homosexuality, to be honest.
You are correct Sister!
Wouldn't that be more like Dictatorship? Lording over God's heritage.
What about the accountability of both parties? You have a man who has misused his position and people who are following obediently?
Jim Jones ordered the deaths of people's infants. If you listen to the death tape those people are very enthusiastic in their wanting to kill themselves.
The individuals who would listen to anyone pastor, doctor, lawyer, in-law, parent, to divorce never cared much about their marriage in the first place.
People who roll over that easy have a long record of being in controlled situations their whole life.
I would like to say, that in some situations it would not be advisable to offer advise that would lead into a bad marriage. If someone is going to be counseled for pre-marriage, and the preacher orders them NOT to get married, then that preacher is over stepping his boundaries. We are not God men, but men of God. Dictatorships and Pulpits don't work towards the will of God.
Could you explain this thought a little further?
:kittyhug
my friend all of the examples i list are related to what all of us would consider excesses. Any good pastor will offer sound advice in areas like marriage, all holiness preachers will speak on the subject of clothing and such. All pastors of all denominations that believe that the tithe is biblical will teach on the subject....any honest teaching can be twisted into legalism and domination/manipulation when taken to excess. it is EXCESS that becomes the problem...and it happens far less often than one would imagine if their only view of Oneness Penticostalism were AFF....
PS, I know more backsidden Campbellites (Church of Christ) than I do backslidden Apostolics. They all claim to have been abused by the church.
Really? I can think of lots of things "much worse". The stigma attached to homosexuality in the Christian community, I think, has more to do with our culture and upbringing than any kind of inherent wickedness of the practice itself. Yes, there is scripture condemning it. But why? I can see the logic in forbidding many things, such as murder, incest, rape, lying, stealing, etc. But homosexuality is different. It seems to be a law for the sake of itself. A test, just to see if we obey, perhaps?
The whole thing about it being a "threat" to the family: I don't buy it. How does it harm my family, if two men down the street are "married" or living together? Nothing they do, in the privacy of their home, can possibly prevent me from having a healthy, monogamous, heterosexual relationship with my wife. Those guys are no threat, whatsoever.
Yes, the activists can get carried away, but it's no more than an annoyance, unless they rioted or something. That's another matter, and it's wrong for good reason. But if they get laws passed allowing gay marriage, so what? It doesn't force me to become gay! Seriously, I don't get the outrage or the alarm. Or why it's so incredibly evil. Someone explain it to me.
Timmy the whole thing about being a threat to the family is a boondoggle. Nobody that I know thinks that is the real bad part of homosexuality. Romans 1 clearly outlines why this is so much more dangerous than just about anything else, it twists ones thinking in such a way that it becomes extremely difficult to believe ANY truth.
Fireside
08-28-2007, 10:39 AM
Timmy's kind of thinking is disturbing, to put it mildly.
Homosexuality defies the order and truth of creation itself.
It is a twisting and a perversion of God's principles and the image of God we bear.
I fail to see how anybody could keep from recognizing the seriousness and severity of that particular sin.
Timmy's kind of thinking is disturbing, to put it mildly.
Homosexuality defies the order and truth of creation itself.
It is a twisting and a perversion of God's principles and the image of God we bear.
I fail to see how anybody could keep from recognizing the seriousness and severity of that particular sin.
aparantly being a Holiness preacher is exactly the same.
Fireside
08-28-2007, 11:08 AM
aparantly being a Holiness preacher is exactly the same.
That seems to be the inference.
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 11:14 AM
Really? I can think of lots of things "much worse". The stigma attached to homosexuality in the Christian community, I think, has more to do with our culture and upbringing THAN any kind of inherent wickedness of the practice itself.
Culture and upbringing? We are not ancient Greeks or Egyptians so I think that by being raised in a country that has somewhat of a Christian ethic the people would be repulsed by sexual perversions. When it becomes the norm and Christians start making excuses for that kind of twisted behavior It is the warning sign that our culture is collapsing.
Yes, there is scripture condemning it. But why? I can see the logic in forbidding many things, such as murder, incest, rape, lying, stealing, etc. But homosexuality is different. It seems to be a law for the sake of itself. A test, just to see if we obey, perhaps?
They were called sodomites before they were ever called homosexuals.
It's perversion and anti-social behavior and will bring down any society who accepts it as normal.
The whole thing about it being a "threat" to the family: I don't buy it.
It's against the family as to redefine what family is, and what family is not.
Perverts adopting children, getting married and ultimately teaching public schools? Wait we already have them teaching in public schools!
That's a good reason to home school! :)
How does it harm my family, if two men down the street are "married" or living together?
How about if everyone in your town are perverts? We are not talking about a different race of people; we are talking about perverts deeply involved in sexual depravity. It's not a case just about two deviants living together, but as society that has no problem with that and the greater tragedy is that there are Christians who have no issue with it either.
Nothing they do, in the privacy of their home,
Please, please, please, that is not so. They are not a normal couple of June Clever and her husband mowing the lawn with pipe clenched in his teeth.
You will have Bob, and William prancing around their yard and kissing each other now and then, and sitting on their porch watching the sunset, and maybe Biff coming over with his partner Chad, but wait Chad's a cross-dresser, and he hasn't lost his beard yet. The only thing that will produce is sicker behavior in your community. The only thing you can teach your children is that what those men are doing down the block is demonically wrong. Those men need to repent.
can possibly prevent me from having a healthy, monogamous, heterosexual relationship with my wife.
Tim what about your children? You need to pray for revival in a society that has sick degenerates living down the road from you. You need to pray that the society will turn from such a course of debauchery
Those guys are no threat, whatsoever.
Problem is they multiply. You need to pray against that sickness and pray that your friendly neighbor to repent through snot bubble and tears.
Yes, the activists can get carried away, but it's no more than an annoyance, unless they rioted or something.
Do yourself a favor research the Stonewall riots. Please Tim, please.
They are not a race, they're perverts who need God worse than the breath of life.
That's another matter, and it's wrong for good reason. But if they get laws passed allowing gay marriage, so what?
Good attitude, and you can just wait until they get laws to lower the age of consent. When a society opens up the flood gates and starts to mess around with moral laws you will rue the day that you said "so what?"
It doesn't force me to become gay!
It might compel little Timmy Jr.
Seriously, I don't get the outrage or the alarm. Or why it's so incredibly evil. Someone explain it to me.
It has been done.
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com
AGAPE
08-28-2007, 11:14 AM
good grief
Timmy
08-28-2007, 11:16 AM
Timmy the whole thing about being a threat to the family is a boondoggle. Nobody that I know thinks that is the real bad part of homosexuality. Romans 1 clearly outlines why this is so much more dangerous than just about anything else, it twists ones thinking in such a way that it becomes extremely difficult to believe ANY truth.
OK, so let me get this straight. (No pun intended!) You say it is more dangerous that just about anything else. Esther can't think of anything much worse. My way of thinking disturbs CS. OK, so, it would apparently be hard for me to list sins that you think are worse, or more "dangerous" as you say, than homosexuality. Let me try, anyway.
Murder.
Rape.
Incest.
Child molesting.
Do any of these come close to the wickedness of homosexuality?
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 11:16 AM
Timmy's kind of thinking is disturbing, to put it mildly.
Homosexuality defies the order and truth of creation itself.
It is a twisting and a perversion of God's principles and the image of God we bear.
I fail to see how anybody could keep from recognizing the seriousness and severity of that particular sin.
Amen
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 11:22 AM
OK, so let me get this straight. (No pun intended!) You say it is more dangerous that just about anything else. Esther can't think of anything much worse. My way of thinking disturbs CS. OK, so, it would apparently be hard for me to list sins that you think are worse, or more "dangerous" as you say, than homosexuality. Let me try, anyway.
Murder.
Rape.
Incest.
Child molesting.
Do any of these come close to the wickedness of homosexuality?
Timmy homosexuality covers all three you have mentioned, and the jail system is jam packed full with Homosexuals who have gotten out of control.
Most serial killers killed more men, and young boys then women, look that up.
You are willing to let your children play with a Pitbull that the owner has fed it gunpowder and sooner than later someone is going to get hurt.
OK, so let me get this straight. (No pun intended!) You say it is more dangerous that just about anything else. Esther can't think of anything much worse. My way of thinking disturbs CS. OK, so, it would apparently be hard for me to list sins that you think are worse, or more "dangerous" as you say, than homosexuality. Let me try, anyway.
Murder.
Rape.
Incest.
Child molesting.
Do any of these come close to the wickedness of homosexuality?
does child molesting qualify for hurting a little one as perscribed by Jesus? I think so, and clearly it ranks right at the top....
Timmy, clearly where hurting someone is concerned, things get very complicated. but when it comes to God and redemption, people that hurt others still dont have the tremendous hurdle to over come that sexual sin causes.
There is a turning of the mind completley different associated with homosexuality than with any other sin. Now where one crosses a line into any sexual perversion ie. molestation or rape, i think the same may in some way apply.
Praxeas
08-28-2007, 11:42 AM
The definition is faulty because legalism is event driven not principle driven. A legalist thinks it's television is pure evil, but the internet is okay even though pornography is easier to get on the internet than on television.
THere are similarities between homosexuality and legalism. The definition you propose is a lofty ideal which will never be acheived because there is always a human element involved.
I got the definition from the dictionary. The one you propose is not in there. Someone that thinks TV is evil is not necessarily then a legalist. There might be another word for it. A legalist could see it that way though, but not necessarily because they are legalists.
I have even known Atheists that refuse to have TVs in their home and yet used a computer to access the internet.
I don't see the similarities. However it's not to hard to find similarities between many things.
One person feels they can find similarities between Mithra and Christianity and makes a big deal out of that
RevDWW
08-28-2007, 11:46 AM
Clearly worshiping the creature more than the Creator should top the list. All other sins are derived from this. Maybe we could say this is the top of the slippery slope, and once over the edge of serving self the slide can send one deep into depravity.
Romans 1:18 - 32 (KJV) 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Praxeas
08-28-2007, 11:49 AM
Wikipedia
Legalism, in Christian theology, is a pejorative term referring to an improper fixation on law or codes of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigor, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God. Legalism is alleged against any view that law, not faith in God's grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption. Its opposite error is Antinomianism, which is alleged against a view that moral laws are not binding.
Antinomianism (from the Greek αντι, "against" + νομος, "law"), or lawlessness (in the Greek Bible: ανομια, which is "unlawful"), in theology, is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities. Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation.
The term has become a point of contention among opposed religious authorities. Few groups or sects explicitly call themselves "antinomian", but the charge is often leveled by some sects against competing sects.
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 11:54 AM
Wikipedia
Legalism, in Christian theology, is a pejorative term referring to an improper fixation on law or codes of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigor, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God. Legalism is alleged against any view that law, not faith in God's grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption. Its opposite error is Antinomianism, which is alleged against a view that moral laws are not binding.
Antinomianism (from the Greek αντι, "against" + νομος, "law"), or lawlessness (in the Greek Bible: ανομια, which is "unlawful"), in theology, is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities. Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation.
The term has become a point of contention among opposed religious authorities. Few groups or sects explicitly call themselves "antinomian", but the charge is often leveled by some sects against competing sects.
tv1a there you have it. So can you show how homosexuality relates?
tv1a there you have it. So can you show how homosexuality relates?
it only relates when an Apostolic Holiness Preacher acts like an Apostolic Holiness Preacher.
then it is gay rape.
Esther
08-28-2007, 12:13 PM
Timmy, sorry I have just read your post. CS has done an excellent job of responding.
Homosexuality is a spirit of perversion that many have an extremely hard time conqueroring. It affects more than one person.
You can say what happens down the street doesn't affect you, but in all honestly you don't know that. You don't know if that person is going to turn on your son IF you have one.
This group is doing as much to bring down Christianity than any other.
This hate crime nonesense is based from the gays.
They have even rallied some countries to pass laws to forbid teaching against gays, even though it is scriptural.
If you think this group is just a little kitty cat, you better wake up and see the roaring lion that has developed.
It is an abomination to God, that in itself says a lot to me.
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 12:16 PM
it only relates when an Apostolic Holiness Preacher acts like an Apostolic Holiness Preacher.
then it is gay rape.
:stop What is that supposed to mean?
Praxeas
08-28-2007, 12:17 PM
:stop What is that supposed to mean?
I think he was being sarcastic
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 12:20 PM
Timmy, sorry I have just read your post. CS has done an excellent job of responding.
Homosexuality is a spirit of perversion that many have an extremely hard time conqueroring. It affects more than one person.
You can say what happens down the street doesn't affect you, but in all honestly you don't know that. You don't know if that person is going to turn on your son IF you have one.
This group is doing as much to bring down Christianity than any other.
This hate crime nonesense is based from the gays.
They have even rallied some countries to pass laws to forbid teaching against gays, even though it is scriptural.
If you think this group is just a little kitty cat, you better wake up and see the roaring lion that has developed.
It is an abomination to God, that in itself says a lot to me.
You made some good points. Imagine if the mentality goes as far as to ban anyone preaching against sexual deviant activities.
:stop What is that supposed to mean?
Satire. scarcasm. meant to point to the ridiculous nature of this argument...
OP_Carl
08-28-2007, 02:00 PM
Really? I can think of lots of things "much worse". . . . But homosexuality is different. It seems to be a law for the sake of itself. A test, just to see if we obey, perhaps? No. The practice of homosexuality stunts the growth of our character and our ability to fully relate to God and to other people. I know it is long, but please read this excellent essay by David Kupelian (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34587).
The whole thing about it being a "threat" to the family: I don't buy it. How does it harm my family, if two men down the street are "married" or living together? Nothing they do, in the privacy of their home, can possibly prevent me from having a healthy, monogamous, heterosexual relationship with my wife. Those guys are no threat, whatsoever. They are advancing a much larger agenda than what you see right now, very slowly and incrementally. They claim to be largely monogamous, and sharing similar other values with hetero people. In truth they engage staggering numbers of partners and engage in other deviant practices as well. Obviously not all of them, and the women are generally more monogamous than the men. But for the men, standard-issue homosexuality is actually a gateway through which these even more grotesque practices become available. But at the activist level, they conduct first-rate public relations. They put the best possible face forward, conceal and de-emphasize the freak show behind the curtain, and deny the agenda.
Here is a peek into the 'control room' (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46887)
Yes, the activists can get carried away, but it's no more than an annoyance, unless they rioted or something. Tell it to this guy. They ARE getting militant on college campi (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh042106.php3)
That's another matter, and it's wrong for good reason. But if they get laws passed allowing gay marriage, so what? It doesn't force me to become gay! It lets a minority redefine marriage, for the purpose of corrupting society.
Seriously, I don't get the outrage or the alarm. Or why it's so incredibly evil. Someone explain it to me.
Your confusion on the matter is further proof of the insidious nature of the ploy. The Gay "Rights" movement purposely attempts to draw parallels to the civil rights movement, when there are none. Gays have not been enslaved, denied basic rights, segregated, or victims of Jim Crow type laws. They have had and still have the same rights as everybody else. What they are pushing for is a protected status - where they are protected from judgment, criticism, and religious speech. That's right. They are actively working to make it illegal for preachers to preach against homosexuality.
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 02:06 PM
Satire. scarcasm. meant to point to the ridiculous nature of this argument...
Who started this anyway?:smack
Fireside
08-28-2007, 02:13 PM
Who altered the title of the thread?
Some admin type?
And what was the purpose?
Praxeas
08-28-2007, 02:15 PM
Who altered the title of the thread?
Some admin type?
And what was the purpose?
Elmer Fudd did it!
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/0/0a/Elmer_Fudd_A_Wild_Hare.jpg
Fireside
08-28-2007, 02:17 PM
Elmer Fudd did it!
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/0/0a/Elmer_Fudd_A_Wild_Hare.jpg
I see.
Why?
OP_Carl
08-28-2007, 02:17 PM
Culture and upbringing? We are not ancient Greeks or Egyptians so I think that by being raised in a country that has somewhat of a Christian ethic the people would be repulsed by sexual perversions. When it becomes the norm and Christians start making excuses for that kind of twisted behavior It is the warning sign that our culture is collapsing. I know this was a harbinger of doom for the Roman empire. What other cultures have followed this pattern?
They were called sodomites before they were ever called homosexuals.
It's perversion and anti-social behavior and will bring down any society who accepts it as normal.
It's against the family as to redefine what family is, and what family is not.
Perverts adopting children, getting married and ultimately teaching public schools? Wait we already have them teaching in public schools!
That's a good reason to home school! :)AMEN!!!
How about if everyone in your town are perverts? We are not talking about a different race of people; we are talking about perverts deeply involved in sexual depravity. It's not a case just about two deviants living together, but as society that has no problem with that and the greater tragedy is that there are Christians who have no issue with it either.Worst case scenario, but it is what some of the activists have as their dream. It has happened before . . .
Please, please, please, that is not so. They are not a normal couple of June Clever and her husband mowing the lawn with pipe clenched in his teeth.
You will have Bob, and William prancing around their yard and kissing each other now and then, and sitting on their porch watching the sunset, and maybe Biff coming over with his partner Chad, but wait Chad's a cross-dresser, and he hasn't lost his beard yet. The only thing that will produce is sicker behavior in your community. The only thing you can teach your children is that what those men are doing down the block is demonically wrong. Those men need to repent.
Tim what about your children? You need to pray for revival in a society that has sick degenerates living down the road from you. You need to pray that the society will turn from such a course of debauchery
Problem is they multiply. Actually, the problem is they don't multiply. So they ardently recruit instead. And they don't always wait until the cadets are 18.
You need to pray against that sickness and pray that your friendly neighbor to repent through snot bubble and tears.You have an inimitable way with words.
Do yourself a favor research the Stonewall riots. Please Tim, please.
They are not a race, they're perverts who need God worse than the breath of life.
Good attitude, and you can just wait until they get laws to lower the age of consent. When a society opens up the flood gates and starts to mess around with moral laws you will rue the day that you said "so what?"
It might compel little Timmy Jr.
It has been done.I don't know how a guy without a gun can be so ON TARGET!!!! :highfive
Joseph
08-28-2007, 02:18 PM
One mans legalism is another mans lifestyle.
Praxeas
08-28-2007, 02:19 PM
I see.
Why?
You know some of these Admins...they have a twisted sense of Humor...I'll change it back for you guys so you won't be a stumbling stone anymore to you thinking :killinme
OP_Carl
08-28-2007, 02:20 PM
tv1a there you have it. So can you show how homosexuality relates?
He hasn't thus far, his efforts have been stilted, hollow, and unpleasant, and he isn't likely to succeed. :coffee2 :nah
In spite of all that, he's still a great guy! :thumbsup
Fireside
08-28-2007, 02:20 PM
You know some of these Admins...they have a twisted sense of Humor...I'll change it back for you guys so you won't be a stumbling stone anymore to you thinking :killinme
We knowest that it is hard for us to kick against the Prax.
Praxeas
08-28-2007, 02:21 PM
We knowest that it is hard for us to kick against the Prax.
ROFL :killinme
Im glad I did not have a mouthful of coffee when I read that
OP_Carl
08-28-2007, 02:22 PM
You know some of these Admins...they have a twisted sense of Humor...I'll change it back for you guys so you won't be a stumbling stone anymore to you thinking :killinme
I thought it was funny . . . :lol
At first I thought somebody had started a new thread as a spoof, and that it had gotten an awful lot of traffic in a short, short while, but then I thought it looked familiar. And then I thought, 'Hey, is that sandwich peanut butter?' :crazy
philjones
08-28-2007, 02:24 PM
I thought it was funny . . . :lol
At first I thought somebody had started a new thread as a spoof, and that it had gotten an awful lot of traffic in a short, short while, but then I thought it looked familiar. Hey, is that sandwich peanut butter? :crazy
I am with you OP Carl! I had the exact same reaction and then it was changed back and I did a double take and decided to check it out and see if my eyes were deceiving me!:hypercoffee
OP_Carl
08-28-2007, 02:27 PM
We knowest that it is hard for us to kick against the Prax.
The setting prohibited me from laughing out loud. I think just had an aneurism, instead. :killinme :killinme :killinme
:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny:sad
You should be more careful and considerate. Your explosive humor can be dangerous! :uhoh:bolt
OP_Carl
08-28-2007, 02:29 PM
Timmy, sorry I have just read your post. CS has done an excellent job of responding.
Homosexuality is a spirit of perversion that many have an extremely hard time conqueroring. It affects more than one person.
You can say what happens down the street doesn't affect you, but in all honestly you don't know that. You don't know if that person is going to turn on your son IF you have one.
This group is doing as much to bring down Christianity than any other.
This hate crime nonesense is based from the gays.
They have even rallied some countries to pass laws to forbid teaching against gays, even though it is scriptural.
If you think this group is just a little kitty cat, you better wake up and see the roaring lion that has developed.
It is an abomination to God, that in itself says a lot to me.
Yep.
Esther
08-28-2007, 02:30 PM
I thought my mind was really tired. I read it twice I did. :)
I thought I "sense" a Prax around. ;)
mfblume
08-28-2007, 02:30 PM
Legalism distorts God's grace, and homosexuality distorts God's image . Both are terrible terrible things. And the people involved see nothing wrong in most cases.
We knowest that it is hard for us to kick against the Prax.
Oh this was GOOD....LOL!
philjones
08-28-2007, 02:34 PM
Where were you at the beginning of this thread? Some people have a hard time not taking this as an attack on conservatism. The discussion is about legalism not conservatism.
As a johnny come lately to this thread, I am not sure you differentiate between the two at all, TV1A.
In your opinion, is it possible to be conservative without being legalistic?
OP_Carl
08-28-2007, 02:44 PM
I thought my mind was really tired. I read it twice I did. :)
I thought I "sense" a Prax around. ;)
Yup. He's up to his usual pranx.
Praxeas
08-28-2007, 02:54 PM
Yup. He's up to his usual pranx.
I'm a praxatologist?
Praxeas
08-28-2007, 02:55 PM
Or Im a praxtical joker?
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 03:03 PM
I know this was a harbinger of doom for the Roman empire. What other cultures have followed this pattern?
Rome is a prime example and America parallels Rome in going from a Republic to becoming an Empire. At the height of her imperial stature she would become extremely decadent. Nero would eclipse Caligula in depravity, which would mark the death knell of the Julian line. Moral corruption degrades any nation and rots it from the inside out. If we don't concentrate on soul winning and reaching out to impact our own community we will be over run with the pornographic steaming hot spew from the mouth of hell. Homosexuality is a blight upon this nation and we have to join in prayer to see these people repent and be baptized in Jesus name.
AMEN!!!
Worst case scenario, but it is what some of the activists have as their dream. It has happened before . . .
Actually, the problem is they don't multiply. So they ardently recruit instead.
Recruitment down here in Fort Lauderdale is rank and you would not believe the ages of some of the young people in this city who tell me that they are lesbians and homosexuals. I know there is coming a revival that will make the "Great Awakening" look like a Saturday morning prayer group.
And they don't always wait until the cadets are 18.
That is the horrible truth.
You have an inimitable way with words.
I don't know how a guy without a gun can be so ON TARGET!!!! :highfive
I try my best. :friend
The Mrs
08-28-2007, 03:17 PM
Or Im a praxtical joker?
Subpraxion at its finest?
Berkley
08-28-2007, 03:52 PM
it only relates when an Apostolic Holiness Preacher acts like an Apostolic Holiness Preacher.
then it is gay rape.
:jaw
pelathais
08-28-2007, 03:53 PM
I think the Crusades are a great example of the kind of excess men will go to in order to bring power to themselves. It is much more closely realated to what one might call "legalism" than homosexual gang rape.
good grief. but if you dont like that one Linin and Trotski clearly fit your wacky man on man type incounter.... much better than the macho gay fest.
once again, where did you do this Anthropological study? UC Berkley? or some other Marxist/feminist/post moderern liberal arts school? You really need to un-learn some stuff.
I presume you are operating on a level of irony here and not repeatedly confusing Lenin with bath towels. As I said, the Crusades certainly involved a lot of up close and personal types of violence, but the whole enterprise was too vast to really fit into the previous types of analogies.
For example Simon De Montfort's men plundered and raped their way through Carcassonne - each individual human encounter being a horrible example of what you appear to be citing. However, the decree of the papacy to authorize the Crusade and the "Albigensian Crusade" itself (to use just one example of "Crusade") was an expansionist war to bring Languedoc regions under the power of the King of France. It was a revenue and land grab, and not "personal."
To equate this to local church dysfunctions is unneccessarily complex, IMHO. My own use of primate behavior is simpler and goes more to the heart of the problem- the need for individual status being played out in an abusive manner.
Let's review: within the context of a discussion comparing "legalists" with "gays" I mentioned that I was in a board meeting once where the manipulative behavior and domineering presence of others made me feel, well... uncomfortable. At least 2 other posters took my statement and repeated it in a rather contrived way as saying (words to the effect), that I compared Apostolic preachers to homosexual rapists. I said nothing of the kind. I said that "I was in a board meeting once..." I didn't even specifically identify anyone as being an "Apostolic Preacher."
You appear to be continuing to attempt to respond to that distortion of my statement and wish to defend these "Apostolic preachers" who you imagine that I have maligned by saying that there were worse things in history than Apostolic preachers, like the Crusades for example. This really does very little to defend Apostolic preachers, but it's the approach you have chosen.
As far as, "where did you do this Anthropological study?" as I stated before, my impressions of my "incounters" (sic) with Apostolics comes from a life long association with Apostolics. The statement that I made that appears to have offended you comes from my experience as an elected official and full time minister within one particular Apostolic fellowship. My secular education came years after my Apostolic training and experience.
My own education has been from a UPC Bible College (many years ago) and (more recently) the same Accredited University that produced Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and numerous other conservative luminaries. From some of my other posts you may have noticed that I have criticized "Marxist/feminist/post moderern liberal arts school" (sic) and their way of thinking. This is a particular field of interest for me.
Perhaps if you did not inflate what I said you wouldn't be so upset and hard pressed to understand where I'm coming from. There's really no need to try and fathom the worst cruelties of the human race when the discussion is merely about individuals mistreating one another locally.
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 04:04 PM
I presume you are operating on a level of irony here and not repeatedly confusing Lenin with bath towels. As I said, the Crusades certainly involved a lot of up close and personal types of violence, but the whole enterprise was too vast to really fit into the previous types of analogies.
For example Simon De Montfort's men plundered and raped their way through Carcassonne - each individual human encounter being a horrible example of what you appear to be citing. However, the decree of the papacy to authorize the Crusade and the "Albigensian Crusade" itself (to use just one example of "Crusade") was an expansionist war to bring Languedoc regions under the power of the King of France.
To equate this to local church dysfunctions is unneccessarily complex, IMHO. My own use of primate behavior is simpler and goes more to the heart of the problem- the need for individual status being played out in an abusive manner.
Let's review: within the context of a discussion comparing "legalists" with "gays" I mentioned that I was in a board meeting once where the manipulative behavior and domineering presence of others made me feel, well... uncomfortable. At least 2 other posters took my statement and repeated it in a rather contrived way as saying (words to the effect), that I compared Apostolic preachers to homosexual rapists. I said nothing of the kind. I said that "I was in a board meeting once..." I didn't even specifically identify anyone as being an "Apostolic Preacher."
You appear to be continuing to attempt to respond to that distortion of my statement and wish to defend these "Apostolic preachers" who you imagine that I have maligned by saying that there were worse things in history than Apostolic preachers, like the Crusades for example. This really does very little to defend Apostolic preachers, but it's the approach you have chosen.
As far as, "where did you do this Anthropological study?" as I stated before, my impressions of my "incounters" (sic) with Apostolics comes from a life long association with Apostolics. The statement that I made that appears to have offended you comes from my experience as an elected official and full time minister within one particular Apostolic fellowship. My secular education came years after my Apostolic training and experience.
My own education has been from a UPC Bible College (many years ago) and (more recently) the same Accredited University that produced Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and numerous other conservative luminaries. From some of my other posts you may have noticed that I have criticized "Marxist/feminist/post moderern liberal arts school" (sic) and their way of thinking. This is a particular field of interest for me.
Perhaps if you did not inflate what I said you wouldn't be so upset and hard pressed to understand where I'm coming from. There's really no need to try and fathom the worst cruelties of the human race when the discussion is merely about individuals mistreating one another locally.
Hey why is everyone picking on Pelathais? Listen let me interpret what he said above.
Worse things have happened in history than Apostolic Preachers....?
Hey...wait a minute...?
What do you mean by that!
pelathais
08-28-2007, 04:19 PM
Hey why is everyone picking on Pelathais? Listen let me interpret what he said above.
Worse things have happened in history than Apostolic Preachers....?
Hey...wait a minute...?
What do you mean by that!
LOL. Thanks, EB.
I guess technically that is true.
It's just sad that Ferd and others had to go to the depths of human cruelty to find examples like "the Crusades" and Soviet communism for something "worse than Apostolic preachers." Of course, I think there was hyperbole in that.
Again, what I said was that once I had an experience... that was bad.
Others made the leap to "Apostolic preachers" and generalized the whole thing out to apparently include all Apostolic preachers. From there we went to, "what's the worse thing that ever happened to anyone anywhere?" Well, I hope "Apostolic preachers" didn't make anyone's list. I certainly never put them into that catagory.
I did however make a rather base comparison that offended some. I regret that, however the experience remains vivid for me.
LOL. Thanks, EB.
I guess technically that is true.
It's just sad that Ferd and others had to go to the depths of human cruelty to find examples like "the Crusades" and Soviet communism for something "worse than Apostolic preachers." Of course, I think there was hyperbole in that.
Again, what I said was that once I had an experience... that was bad.
Others made the leap to "Apostolic preachers" and generalized the whole thing out to apparently include all Apostolic preachers. From there we went to, "what's the worse thing that ever happened to anyone anywhere?" Well, I hope "Apostolic preachers" didn't make anyone's list. I certainly never put them into that catagory.
I did however make a rather base comparison that offended some. I regret that, however the experience remains vivid for me.
well what Lenin did to Trotsky (did I spell that right) would be more one on one for ya....
my point is that manipulation on many levels is done by men for some reason. often it is to gather power or to keep power. I still say the crusades were much about that.
and I also see that most preachers who are manipulatative do so more on a corporate scale than one on one (though it does involve that)
maybe we dont completely disagree. But no, I didnt think you were talking about all Apostolic preachers. That was for some others....
pelathais
08-28-2007, 04:42 PM
well what Lenin did to Trotsky (did I spell that right) would be more one on one for ya....
I thought you were doing it on purpose to belittle the ideology ... you know, like the way Rush Limbaugh purposefully mispronounces things to make fun of the liberal side. But a typo is just a typo and of no consequence.
my point is that manipulation on many levels is done by men for some reason. often it is to gather power or to keep power. I still say the crusades were much about that.
A point well made and now, well taken.
and I also see that most preachers who are manipulatative do so more on a corporate scale than one on one (though it does involve that)
maybe we dont completely disagree. But no, I didnt think you were talking about all Apostolic preachers. That was for some others....
Thanks. I appreciate the back and forth. Sometimes I get clumsy with this medium and I was afraid of being taken out of context.
Your points were excellent, I just quibbled about the scale of something like the Crusades verses local stuff.
As far as poor EB - I'm certain that he's not the worst thing that ever happened to the world.
Hoovie
08-28-2007, 04:44 PM
I have'nt read this thread but I hope we don't have to choose.
stmatthew
08-28-2007, 04:58 PM
I for one think the idea that someone would rather side with someone that is a homosexual, than a person that is just too strict in his interpretation of the Holy Bible is very telling of where that person stands.
I am really finding this difficult to grasp here. One person takes the word of God, and lives it too strictly, and expects others to do the same. The other blatantly rejects nature itself, and does that which is unnatural, and an abomination to God. There is no comparison!
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 04:59 PM
LOL. Thanks, EB.
I guess technically that is true.
It's just sad that Ferd and others had to go to the depths of human cruelty to find examples like "the Crusades" and Soviet communism for something "worse than Apostolic preachers." Of course, I think there was hyperbole in that.
Again, what I said was that once I had an experience... that was bad.
Others made the leap to "Apostolic preachers" and generalized the whole thing out to apparently include all Apostolic preachers. From there we went to, "what's the worse thing that ever happened to anyone anywhere?" Well, I hope "Apostolic preachers" didn't make anyone's list. I certainly never put them into that catagory.
I did however make a rather base comparison that offended some. I regret that, however the experience remains vivid for me.
Hey everyone give Pelathais a break, he just wants to be understood.
Did you go to Stanford or Notre Dame?
Do you like Chicken Jambalaya?
Berkley
08-28-2007, 05:00 PM
I for one think the idea that someone would rather side with someone that is a homosexual, than a person that is just too strict in his interpretation of the Holy Bible is very telling of where that person stands.
I am really finding this difficult to grasp here. One person takes the word of God, and lives it too strictly, and expects others to do the same. The other blatantly rejects nature itself, and does that which is unnatural, and an abomination to God. There is no comparison!
right.. like I said
Is this thread for real?
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 05:01 PM
I for one think the idea that someone would rather side with someone that is a homosexual, than a person that is just too strict in his interpretation of the Holy Bible is very telling of where that person stands.
I am really finding this difficult to grasp here. One person takes the word of God, and lives it too strictly, and expects others to do the same. The other blatantly rejects nature itself, and does that which is unnatural, and an abomination to God. There is no comparison!
Very well said. Bravo!
pelathais
08-28-2007, 05:03 PM
Hey everyone give Pelathais a break, he just wants to be understood.
Did you go to Stanford or Notre Dame?
Neither.
Do you like Chicken Jambalaya?
I don't get the reference.
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 05:07 PM
Neither.
I don't get the reference.
Then did you go to Denver or the Universty of Alabama?
pelathais
08-28-2007, 05:11 PM
Then did you go to Denver or the Universty of Alabama?
What's with the chicken?
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 05:18 PM
What's with the chicken?
Oh I'm just missing Louisiana. :sad
pelathais
08-28-2007, 05:21 PM
Come fall and winter I miss the South. In August - I'm outta there!
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 05:23 PM
Come fall and winter I miss the South. In August - I'm outta there!
Pelathais where are you located? Also what do you mean when you say South?
pelathais
08-28-2007, 05:26 PM
I for one think the idea that someone would rather side with someone that is a homosexual, than a person that is just too strict in his interpretation of the Holy Bible is very telling of where that person stands.
I am really finding this difficult to grasp here. One person takes the word of God, and lives it too strictly, and expects others to do the same. The other blatantly rejects nature itself, and does that which is unnatural, and an abomination to God. There is no comparison!
I generally agree. However:
1) If a person has had a negative experience with a "legalist" AND...
2) Not much experience around "gays" or a single positive experience with, say a "gay" coworker or such...
... then that person may tend to weight their judgments a little heavily to one side.
philjones
08-28-2007, 05:51 PM
Neither.
I don't get the reference.
So you went to the University of Denver? :D
Timmy
08-28-2007, 06:03 PM
I generally agree. However:
1) If a person has had a negative experience with a "legalist" AND...
2) Not much experience around "gays" or a single positive experience with, say a "gay" coworker or such...
... then that person may tend to weight their judgments a little heavily to one side.
But legalism is not simply trying too hard to obey God. Theologically, it is believing that following the law is how one is saved. Paul shoots it down nicely in Galatians 3. Legalism masquerades as righteousness and salvation, while cursing (says Paul) those who fall for it. Insidious.
Of course, nobody here says that's how you're saved. It's by repenting, being baptized in water in Jesus' name (making sure your baptizer doesn't use the dreaded "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" wording, or it won't "take"), being filled with the Holy Ghost. speaking in tongues, and by following all the rules for the rest of your life. Only they may not tell you that last part right away. That comes later. And exactly which rules to follow is subject to much debate, of course.
Fireside
08-28-2007, 06:05 PM
But legalism is not simply trying too hard to obey God. Theologically, it is believing that following the law is how one is saved. Paul shoots it down nicely in Galatians 3. Legalism masquerades as righteousness and salvation, while cursing (says Paul) those who fall for it. Insidious.
Of course, nobody here says that's how you're saved. It's by repenting, being baptized in water in Jesus' name (making sure your baptizer doesn't use the dreaded "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" wording, or it won't "take"), being filled with the Holy Ghost. speaking in tongues, and by following all the rules for the rest of your life. Only they may not tell you that last part right away. That comes later. And exactly which rules to follow is subject to much debate, of course.
Even if your skewed version were correct, it would still be miles ahead of homosexuality.
philjones
08-28-2007, 06:06 PM
But legalism is not simply trying too hard to obey God. Theologically, it is believing that following the law is how one is saved. Paul shoots it down nicely in Galatians 3. Legalism masquerades as righteousness and salvation, while cursing (says Paul) those who fall for it. Insidious.
Of course, nobody here says that's how you're saved. It's by repenting, being baptized in water in Jesus' name (making sure your baptizer doesn't use the dreaded "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" wording, or it won't "take"), being filled with the Holy Ghost. speaking in tongues, and by following all the rules for the rest of your life. Only they may not tell you that last part right away. That comes later. And exactly which rules to follow is subject to much debate, of course.
You really seem to have it down, Timmy! :)
Timmy
08-28-2007, 06:09 PM
You really seem to have it down, Timmy! :)
I've learned a lot, here! :hypercoffee
philjones
08-28-2007, 06:10 PM
I've learned a lot, here! :hypercoffee
Don't brag about that in a public place! :D
stmatthew
08-28-2007, 06:12 PM
But legalism is not simply trying too hard to obey God. Theologically, it is believing that following the law is how one is saved. Paul shoots it down nicely in Galatians 3. Legalism masquerades as righteousness and salvation, while cursing (says Paul) those who fall for it. Insidious.
Of course, nobody here says that's how you're saved. It's by repenting, being baptized in water in Jesus' name (making sure your baptizer doesn't use the dreaded "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" wording, or it won't "take"), being filled with the Holy Ghost. speaking in tongues, and by following all the rules for the rest of your life. Only they may not tell you that last part right away. That comes later. And exactly which rules to follow is subject to much debate, of course.
You will not find any "legalists" (as some would call them) in the Apostolic ranks that believe works saves anyone. But at the same time, God will reject anyone who expects to get saved, and then live a "Lawless" life.
pelathais
08-28-2007, 06:18 PM
Even if your skewed version were correct, it would still be miles ahead of homosexuality.
In defence of Timmy, not that he asked for nor even needs my help...
His version is not all that "skewed." It may be, and I hope that this is the case, that what he describes is different from your experience. His précis does describe what a very large number of people have also described as their experiences.
Given the fact that we are failing to retain our young people and even most of our converts I think it's healthy for us to re-evaluate the way we do things. In other words, are we coming up short of God's expectations in some way?
Rather than looking at the "legalist" as the one who has "gone the extra mile," I think Timmy is suggesting that the "legalist" has simply "gone the wrong way."
pelathais
08-28-2007, 06:23 PM
You will not find any "legalists" (as some would call them) in the Apostolic ranks that believe works saves anyone. But at the same time, God will reject anyone who expects to get saved, and then live a "Lawless" life.
Quite the contrary there Napoleon. I won't bog you down with the hundreds of anecdotes that I could, but remember the "half shekel" teaching (just as one example)? That taught that you could actually buy salvation and healings for your body. It was so prevalent at one time that a respected theologian from our ranks was commissioned to write an article condemning the practice in the Forward magazine.
I referenced that article in a meeting where I was speaking once and a group in the audience actually disrupted the service by trying to shout me down over the issue. One voice there was a district official.
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 06:24 PM
I generally agree. However:
1) If a person has had a negative experience with a "legalist" AND...
2) Not much experience around "gays" or a single positive experience with, say a "gay" coworker or such...
... then that person may tend to weight their judgments a little heavily to one side.
People who have met individuals from motorcycle clubs have thought them quite charming, but wouldn't venture to ride with them. Some people have had bad experiences with motorcycle clubs and would still hang out with them. This all goes back to what I was saying about the Jonestown Death Tape (FBI No. Q 042), that there were people who had bad experiences with Jim Jones and continued with him and others who also had the same bad experiences with Jim Jones and left him and never returned.
I said all that to say this, people formulate their own opinions and believe what they want to believe for hundreds of different reasons. We see this in everyday life. We cannot compare sexual deviants with an Apostolic minister with just a broad brush statement.
Now when we shift this discussion to autocratic leadership that is extremly abusive than we can speak about sociopathic, or narsistic behaviors, which sexual deviants do fall under.
I must stress that Apostolic Holiness preachers who have wonderful beautiful moves of God and the people in the church love the minister and the minister loves the people. No matter what someone may say about the way that certain church believes, no one can discount the love of God in the services. From the outsider looking in it may look odd or cultish, but if anyone was to spend time with the people in prayer and worship and feel the power of God move they may walk away with another view.
The homosexual community is not that way and you will feel a spirit and that spirit will move but you sure don’t want it moving on you.
Can you compare the two? Just because a man preaches against television or short sleeves does that put him on the same level as a deviant? The question is ridiculous.
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com
philjones
08-28-2007, 06:28 PM
In defence of Timmy, not that he asked for nor even needs my help...
His version is not all that "skewed." It may be, and I hope that this is the case, that what he describes is different from your experience. His précis does describe what a very large number of people have also described as their experiences.
Given the fact that we are failing to retain our young people and even most of our converts I think it's healthy for us to re-evaluate the way we do things. In other words, are we coming up short of God's expectations in some way?
Rather than looking at the "legalist" as the one who has "gone the extra mile," I think Timmy is suggesting that the "legalist" has simply "gone the wrong way."
Pelathais,
Are you saying that the reason we are not keeping our new converts and our young people is the fault of our positions on being a separated and readily identifiable, spiritually speaking, people? Must we compromise our uniqueness to retain what the power of the blood is supposed to keep? I honestly think the reason we are struggling, like most other groups, is the cultural propensity for post modern thought and moral relativism. I have found that the genuinely hungry stick. Those who are following emotion or a specific urgent need outside of salvation seldom hang around. I have not had any that have said oh it was the legalism that drove me away. Have you heard that?
stmatthew
08-28-2007, 06:29 PM
Quite the contrary there Napoleon. I won't bog you down with the hundreds of anecdotes that I could, but remember the "half shekel" teaching (just as one example)? That taught that you could actually buy salvation and healings for your body. It was so prevalent at one time that a respected theologian from our ranks was commissioned to write an article condemning the practice in the Forward magazine.
I referenced that article in a meeting where I was speaking once and a group in the audience actually disrupted the service by trying to shout me down over the issue. One voice there was a district official.
Well, I am speaking of real Apostolics, not those that would accept such a false teaching. :D
The truth is that no legitimate Apostolic would say one was saved by works. His doing so would disqualify him from being an Apostolic.
stmatthew
08-28-2007, 06:30 PM
Quite the contrary there Napoleon. I won't bog you down with the hundreds of anecdotes that I could, but remember the "half shekel" teaching (just as one example)? That taught that you could actually buy salvation and healings for your body. It was so prevalent at one time that a respected theologian from our ranks was commissioned to write an article condemning the practice in the Forward magazine.
I referenced that article in a meeting where I was speaking once and a group in the audience actually disrupted the service by trying to shout me down over the issue. One voice there was a district official.
and just because one is a DS does not mean they are Apostolic. It just means they are political.
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 06:49 PM
But legalism is not simply trying too hard to obey God.
That's where you don't understand those who kept the law in the scriptures.
These individuals were devout and loved God and therefore it was not problem for them to obey. Jesus said how could you love me and do not what I say. It's easy to do the hardest job in the world when you love someone.
If you love your wife nothing she asks could ever get you upset. You're in love. I don't watch television because I understand that there is noting on it I would want to see. Since the television is full of misinformation and low-level entertainment why would a child of God want to view it? Remember it's all about viewing, not just owning.
Theologically, it is believing that following the law is how one is saved.
No, following the Law only leads someone to The Lawgiver, and never made anyone perfect or mature. The love of the Father draws us near and the by-product of my love for Him and His love for me is that I will separate myself from those things that are in this world. I won't want to talk like the world or walk like the world.
Paul shoots it down nicely in Galatians 3. Legalism masquerades as righteousness and salvation, while cursing (says Paul) those who fall for it. Insidious.
Paul is talking about circumcision that was making saved Gentiles into physical Jews. In other words those Judaizers in the first century was adding circumcision into the equation because they wanted the Gentile dogs to become Jewish human beings, and therefore completing the job of salvation.
That was not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When people mix holiness with the law to circumcise new Gentile converts into Judaism they are missing the point of what Paul taught.
Of course, nobody here says that's how you're saved.
Then we have no argument. :)
It's by repenting, being baptized in water in Jesus' name (making sure your baptizer doesn't use the dreaded "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" wording, or it won't "take"), being filled with the Holy Ghost. speaking in tongues, and by following all the rules for the rest of your life. Only they may not tell you that last part right away. That comes later. And exactly which rules to follow is subject to much debate, of course.
Timmy what is truly amazing is that people think outward standards is the big bone crusher. Listen there are people who are in churches that have no standards who can't stop messing with pornography, lying, cheating, anger, hate, theft, and all other sorts of vice. Tim, it's not about the outward, you got to have a clean heart, and get some prayer, and worship on your face in a puddle of snot and tears. If we still want to look like 50 Cent, or David Allan Coe then what can you do.
I fell in love and when I fell in love I studied and prayed and fasted and worshiped my wife did the same and we both feel the same way about holiness.
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com
stmatthew
08-28-2007, 06:56 PM
I would say that I probably have never met a legalist. I was around the AMF, and have considered myself conservative on most issues. I have seen men that seemed over dogmatic on some issues. But I have never met one of those men that believed you were saved by works. Again, to define, they taught that after salvation you were created to good works, and if your works were evil, then..........
Sherri
08-28-2007, 07:03 PM
This is the strangest thread......:girlpopcorn
philjones
08-28-2007, 07:06 PM
This is the strangest thread......:girlpopcorn
Kind of queer isn't it?:killinme:killinme:killinme
Oh so shoot me!
stmatthew
08-28-2007, 07:07 PM
Kind of queer isn't it?:killinme:killinme:killinme
Oh so shoot me!
and here I thought we were having a gay old time.
:bliss
RevDWW
08-28-2007, 07:07 PM
Kind of queer isn't it?:killinme:killinme:killinme
Oh so shoot me!
:toofunny:lol:lol:lol
pelathais
08-28-2007, 07:09 PM
Pelathais,
Are you saying that the reason we are not keeping our new converts and our young people is the fault of our positions on being a separated and readily identifiable, spiritually speaking, people?
No, not at all.
Must we compromise our uniqueness to retain what the power of the blood is supposed to keep? I honestly think the reason we are struggling, like most other groups, is the cultural propensity for post modern thought and moral relativism. I have found that the genuinely hungry stick. Those who are following emotion or a specific urgent need outside of salvation seldom hang around. I have not had any that have said oh it was the legalism that drove me away. Have you heard that?
Yes I have. And it usually happens where the "legalism" is stressed in such a way that you have manipulation and not discipleship. I've seen entire congregations fall apart because the pastor and those in leadership insisted on doing things in such a heavy handed fashion.
Let me try to give examples without raising blame or pointing fingers (too much). Google "united pentecostal" and "cult." Look at the specific cases that are usually cited by some of the web sites you find. We all are probably familiar (and some what sick) of reading about some of these cases. Look at the individual churches and circumstances that occured.
I will contend that while, yes these are problematic situations, however the instances involved don't truly represent the UPC or "Apostolic" churches in general. In fact, the personalities are often known to have been "troublemakers" within the UPC. But these cases are real. peoples lives were impacted and this type of stuff happens a lot.
I think you, and others, are saying what I pointed out: "But they don't represent Apostolic churches." Yes! Good!
But they do happen. And the way to make it happen less is for us to speak out about it- not the anti-UPC and anti-Apostolic people.
And you are correct ("struggling like most other groups..."). Thankfully we are not as bad as many other groups. In fact, I think we're better than most. But we have to be proactive, especially in a media dominated society. We have to be the ones out front condemning the things that are wrong.
Can you imagine the difference it would have made for the Catholic church if their bishops had jumped on the first set of pedophile priests and made examples out of them? It would have saved them $6 Billion dollars and a lot of grief. We have to do for ourselves what those men failed to do for themselves.
Berkley
08-28-2007, 07:16 PM
Legalism and Homosexuality.... light years apart!! good grief!!
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 07:16 PM
In defence of Timmy, not that he asked for nor even needs my help...
His version is not all that "skewed." It may be, and I hope that this is the case, that what he describes is different from your experience. His précis does describe what a very large number of people have also described as their experiences.
Wait a minute my father was an atheist, and so were a large majority of his friends. He and his crew would have told you that it was more an experience with religious people as a whole. You are looking at the bug on the leaf by insisting that conservative, standard preaching Pentecostals have a large number of people adversely affected by their group. I would go further that in the time we are living in people are saying that all religion is adversely affecting the world as a whole. With failures like Juanita Bynum, Randy and Paula White, Jimmy Swaggart, and Jimmy Bakker the liberal Charismatic movement is not winning any roses. I believe as the stock market continues to overheat and mortgages are blowing out left and right, and more financial problems continue to slam into this country we shall see people returning to a more stable Christianity.
Given the fact that we are failing to retain our young people and even most of our converts I think it's healthy for us to re-evaluate the way we do things. In other words, are we coming up short of God's expectations in some way?
Will I lose my daughters if I tell them they can't hang out down in Fort Lauderdale city? Please, this is about relationship with the Holy Ghost and getting into the Word of God. People want the Word, and they fall in love with the Holy Ghost. This is about the persuasion of the Lord drawing all men nigh. I don't have to reinvent the wheel, I just need to hit the streets everyday and keep doing Bible studies and baptizing people who WANT to change their lives. We can't make anyone do anything, all we can do is preach the Word and let God give the increase.
Rather than looking at the "legalist" as the one who has "gone the extra mile," I think Timmy is suggesting that the "legalist" has simply "gone the wrong way."
That would not be correct, because anyone from a motocross racer to the woman who collects Hummel figuriens when you love something you become fanatical about it, and when the elders help with leading and teaching with balance, everyone is happier.
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com
pelathais
08-28-2007, 07:16 PM
Can you compare the two? Just because a man preaches against television or short sleeves does that put him on the same level as a deviant? The question is ridiculous.
Yes, I agree. But I also observe that you're the one who "asked" the question. You framed it yourself to fit fit the "ridiculous" conclusion.
Of course, whoever framed the thread name appears to have put it together in the first place.
And you are very correct in emphasizing the need to worship and pray with people in order to understand them. At least IMO. But how far "out there" have you practiced this? Ever pray and worship with trinitarians? Charismatics? What about trying out the liturgical groups, Lutherans, Anglican and Catholics?
I have sensed some profound moves of God in some of the most unexpected places. But then again, I've also witnessed some real wacky stuff in my williness to open up like that.
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 07:17 PM
Kind of queer isn't it?:killinme:killinme:killinme
Oh so shoot me!
Oh here we go again.
RevDWW
08-28-2007, 07:17 PM
Clearly worshiping the creature more than the Creator should top the list. All other sins are derived from this. Maybe we could say this is the top of the slippery slope, and once over the edge of serving self the slide can send one deep into depravity.
Romans 1:18 - 32 (KJV) 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
philjones
08-28-2007, 07:19 PM
Oh here we go again.
What'd I do... What'd I do???:killinme:killinme
Hoovie
08-28-2007, 07:23 PM
and here I thought we were having a gay old time.
:bliss
You guyth are thsicking.
philjones
08-28-2007, 07:26 PM
You guyth are thsicking.
Stick to you day job.... you'll never make it as a gay bob!:roseglasses
Hoovie
08-28-2007, 07:27 PM
Stick to you day job.... you'll never make it as a gay bob!:roseglasses
Fortunately I have also never heard of such!
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 07:30 PM
Yes, I agree. But I also observe that you're the one who "asked" the question. You framed it yourself to fit fit the "ridiculous" conclusion.
Wrong, I didn't start this thread, so my conclusion of it being ridiculous is well founded. My choice of using a man who preaches against television as an example was done because the Pentecostal/Charismatic view of "Legalism" is just that.
Of course, whoever framed the thread name appears to have put it together in the first place.
And you are very correct in emphasizing the need to worship and pray with people in order to understand them. At least IMO. But how far "out there" have you practiced this? Ever pray and worship with trinitarians? Charismatics? What about trying out the liturgical groups, Lutherans, Anglican and Catholics?
Yes, and?
I have sensed some profound moves of God in some of the most unexpected places. But then again, I've also witnessed some real wacky stuff in my williness to open up like that.
I have also had the same experiences, but what has kept you and I continuing to move forward? Being an evangelist and traveling to different areas and having pastors send you and your family to different places where you have never been. Or even met the pastor or his congregation and seeing all kinds of things that I have never seen before, but still keeping in mind not wanting to miss God or judge before the time. I want to do my job right and therefore I need to wait until all the information is in and react only as the Holy Ghost leads.
That's were wisdom must be employed and if I can pass that knowledge on to other Brothers and Sisters in the church family and they receive it, then we can all carefully build a local congregation.
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com
pelathais
08-28-2007, 07:32 PM
Wait a minute my father was an atheist, and so were a large majority of his friends. He and his crew would have told you that it was more an experience with religious people as a whole. You are looking at the bug on the leaf by insisting that conservative, standard preaching Pentecostals have a large number of people adversely affected by their group.
I have not said that (in bold above). I have said that "legalists" have "gone the wrong way." See below: your comments about "balanced..."
I would go further that in the time we are living in people are saying that all religion is adversely affecting the world as a whole. With failures like Juanita Bynum, Randy and Paula White, Jimmy Swaggart, and Jimmy Bakker the liberal Charismatic movement is not winning any roses. I believe as the stock market continues to overheat and mortgages are blowing out left and right, and more financial problems continue to slam into this country we shall see people returning to a more stable Christianity.
You are correct about the failings you cite, and I hope you are correct about the "returning to a more stable Christianity..."
Will I lose my daughters if I tell them they can't hang out down in Fort Lauderdale city?
I can only guess that this is not the place that I would want my daughter to hang out either... But giving that guidance to young people is not "legalism." You are constructing strawmen and then knocking them down- and I agree, knock those guys down. But getting back to "legalism..."
Please, this is about relationship with the Holy Ghost and getting into the Word of God. People want the Word, and they fall in love with the Holy Ghost. This is about the persuasion of the Lord drawing all men nigh. I don't have to reinvent the wheel, I just need to hit the streets everyday and keep doing Bible studies and baptizing people who WANT to change their lives. We can't make anyone do anything, all we can do is preach the Word and let God give the increase.
What you describe here is the antithesis of legalism. You are talking about a real faith held in one's heart.
That would not be correct, because anyone from a motocross racer to the woman who collects Hummel figuriens when you love something you become fanatical about it, and when the elders help with leading and teaching with balance, everyone is happier.
Becoming "fanatical" about your relationship with Jesus Christ is not "legalism." Legalism happens when the relationship is lost or marginalized and the person then grinds down on their own particular set of standards or rules to try and enforce their own cultural views.
pelathais
08-28-2007, 07:35 PM
Wrong, I didn't start this thread, so my conclusion of it being ridiculous is well founded. My choice of using a man who preaches against television as an example was done because the Pentecostal/Charismatic view of "Legalism" is just that.
Yes, and?
I have also had the same experiences, but what has kept you and I continuing to move forward? Being an evangelist and traveling to different areas and having pastors send you and your family to different places where you have never been. Or even met the pastor or his congregation and seeing all kinds of things that I have never seen before, but still keeping in mind not wanting to miss God or judge before the time. I want to do my job right and therefore I need to wait until all the information is in and react only as the Holy Ghost leads.
That's were wisdom must be employed and if I can pass that knowledge on to other Brothers and Sisters in the church family and they receive it, then we can all carefully build a local congregation.
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com (http://www.OnTimeJournal.com)
I think were losing each other in the cut and paste quoting thing.
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 07:37 PM
I have not said that (in bold above). I have said that "legalists" have "gone the wrong way." See below: your comments about "balanced..."
You are correct about the failings you cite, and I hope you are correct about the "returning to a more stable Christianity..."
I can only guess that this is not the place that I would want my daughter to hang out either... But giving that guidance to young people is not "legalism." You are constructing strawmen and then knocking them down- and I agree, knock those guys down. But getting back to "legalism..."
What you describe here is the antithesis of legalism. You are talking about a real faith held in one's heart.
Becoming "fanatical" about your relationship with Jesus Christ is not "legalism." Legalism happens when the relationship is lost or marginalized and the person then grinds down on their own particular set of standards or rules to try and enforce their own cultural views.
Wait a minute since definitions are being lost among us we need to know what YOU consider "Legalism".
By me asking you to define this term we can see where this discussion is leading.
pelathais
08-28-2007, 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=227765#post227765)
Can you compare the two? Just because a man preaches against television or short sleeves does that put him on the same level as a deviant? The question is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=227848#post227848)
Yes, I agree. But I also observe that you're the one who "asked" the question. You framed it yourself to fit fit the "ridiculous" conclusion.
EB: "Wrong, I didn't start this thread, so my conclusion of it being ridiculous is well founded. My choice of using a man who preaches against television as an example was done because the Pentecostal/Charismatic view of "Legalism" is just that."
Pelathais: The question that you asked, to which I refered was, "Just because a man preaches against television or short sleeves does that put him on the same level as a deviant?"
I then pointed out that you asked that question, not me. I never made that comparison, you brought it up and then slam dunked it. The discussion is becoming something where you are arguing with yourself and the arguments that you imagine that I would make. We are also losing something in the quote and paste routines.
You have not really seen, or I have failed to make it seen that a condemnation of "legalism" is not a condemnation of holiness or standards, per se.
To condemn legalism is to condemn a system or practice of religion that leaves God out of the equation. If you don't practice "legalism" then we have no argument. But you seem kind of touchy when it comes up.
pelathais
08-28-2007, 07:51 PM
Wait a minute since definitions are being lost among us we need to know what YOU consider "Legalism".
By me asking you to define this term we can see where this discussion is leading.
Yes, good. Thanks.
Legalism happens when the relationship with God is lost or marginalized and the person then grinds down on their own particular set of standards or rules to try and enforce their own cultural views.
Legalism is the idea that a particular set of rules of conduct must be performed in order to aquire or ensure salvation. These "rules" are understood to not be explicitly defined in the New Testament, but are added on to the New Testament's requirements for all Christians.
OP_Carl
08-28-2007, 08:52 PM
This is the strangest thread......:girlpopcorn
Kind of queer isn't it?:killinme:killinme:killinme
Oh so shoot me!
Oh here we go again.
:blink
:doh
:spit . :spit . :spit . :spit . :spit . :spit . :spit . :spit . :spit . :spit
:drawguns
:winkgrin
:toofunny :killinme I think I need medical attention!
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=227765#post227765)
Can you compare the two? Just because a man preaches against television or short sleeves does that put him on the same level as a deviant? The question is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=227848#post227848)
Yes, I agree. But I also observe that you're the one who "asked" the question. You framed it yourself to fit fit the "ridiculous" conclusion.
EB: "Wrong, I didn't start this thread, so my conclusion of it being ridiculous is well founded. My choice of using a man who preaches against television as an example was done because the Pentecostal/Charismatic view of "Legalism" is just that."
Pelathais: The question that you asked, to which I refered was, "Just because a man preaches against television or short sleeves does that put him on the same level as a deviant?"
I then pointed out that you asked that question, not me. I never made that comparison, you brought it up and then slam dunked it. The discussion is becoming something where you are arguing with yourself and the arguments that you imagine that I would make. We are also losing something in the quote and paste routines.
You have not really seen, or I have failed to make it seen that a condemnation of "legalism" is not a condemnation of holiness or standards, per se.
To condemn legalism is to condemn a system or practice of religion that leaves God out of the equation. If you don't not practice "legalism" then we have no argument. But you seem kind of touchy when it comes up.
My wanting to defend came from thinking that you were defending what most believe Legalsim to be and that is standard preaching ministers.
Since that is not what yopu believe as you have said that legalism is a system that leaves out God. Since you have made that statement we have no argument.
Now have you ever had Boudin Rouge?
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 09:05 PM
Yes, good. Thanks.
Legalism happens when the relationship with God is lost or marginalized and the person then grinds down on their own particular set of standards or rules to try and enforce their own cultural views.
I know Apostolic ministers and congregations who have a great realtionship with God. Now Mother Teresa of Calcutta is another story. I guess she would rate as a legalist?
Legalism is the idea that a particular set of rules of conduct must be performed in order to aquire or ensure salvation. These "rules" are understood to not be explicitly defined in the New Testament, but are added on to the New Testament's requirements for all Christians.
Now this would be a cause of debate, because one would have to prove beyond the shadow of doubt what the early church thought was good behavior for a devout follower of Christ.
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com
pelathais
08-28-2007, 09:13 PM
My wanting to defend came from thinking that you were defending what most believe Legalsim to be and that is standard preaching ministers.
Since that is not what yopu believe as you have said that legalism is a system that leaves out God. Since you have made that statement we have no argument.
Now have you ever had Boudin Rouge?
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com (http://www.OnTimeJournal.com)
I had to Google that, so I guess there's your answer. LOL
No. I do not eat food made with blood. I know that there are many who will say that if it's cooked as in this particular dish, it fine. But I just stay away.
pelathais
08-28-2007, 09:20 PM
I know Apostolic ministers and congregations who have a great realtionship with God. Now Mother Teresa of Calcutta is another story. I guess she would rate as a legalist?
You might not believe this, but I actually met her once. I was introduced as part of a large number of other community "ministers," so I didn't really "meet" with her, I just "met" her. As far as being a "legalist" herself, I can't say. However the Roman Catholic church in many of the ways in which it has applied it's beliefs has been legalistic.
Now this would be a cause of debate, because one would have to prove beyond the shadow of doubt what the early church thought was good behavior for a devout follower of Christ.
Yes, sadly, there you have it. We'll be at it for a while... Especially when it comes down to how to apply the teachings of the NT in today's modern world. But that's why we have these boards.
A common bond between a legalist and a homosexual is the blatent redefinition of terms and principles to fit their agenda. A homsexual's definition of a monogamous relationship is having intimate relations with one person at a time. It could be three or four a week, but one at a time.
The easiest example for the legalist is television/internet debate. The principle against televisions are not applied to internet. A legalist has a sliding scale for principle.
Legalism and homosexuality are built on shakey foundations.
Legalists and homosexuals live by their own set of rules and expect everyone else to do the same.
Homosexuals call it gay bashing when someone disagrees with their philosophy. Legalists cry persecution if someone disagrees with their philosophy.
As indicated earlier leglaists and homosexual are selective with applying principle. Both are abominations to God.
I got the definition from the dictionary. The one you propose is not in there. Someone that thinks TV is evil is not necessarily then a legalist. There might be another word for it. A legalist could see it that way though, but not necessarily because they are legalists.
I have even known Atheists that refuse to have TVs in their home and yet used a computer to access the internet.
I don't see the similarities. However it's not to hard to find similarities between many things.
One person feels they can find similarities between Mithra and Christianity and makes a big deal out of that
Legalism is the inconsistent application of Biblical principles to promote a particular agenda and expect the whole world to follow suit. There is a lack of uniformity among legalists. About the only thing they agree on is things need to be done their eay.
Yes, good. Thanks.
Legalism happens when the relationship with God is lost or marginalized and the person then grinds down on their own particular set of standards or rules to try and enforce their own cultural views.
Legalism is the idea that a particular set of rules of conduct must be performed in order to aquire or ensure salvation. These "rules" are understood to not be explicitly defined in the New Testament, but are added on to the New Testament's requirements for all Christians.
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 09:39 PM
You might not believe this, but I actually met her once. I was introduced as part of a large number of other community "ministers," so I didn't really "meet" with her, I just "met" her. As far as being a "legalist" herself, I can't say. However the Roman Catholic church in many of the ways in which it has applied it's beliefs has been legalistic.
The new issue of Time says Mother Teresa of Calcutta didn't believe in God. She had lost her faith in God during her lifetime working in India. She had no relationship, and no belief.
Yes, sadly, there you have it. We'll be at it for a while... Especially when it comes down to how to apply the teachings of the NT in today's modern world. But that's why we have these boards.
Modern world? I won't have my daughters dressing like some modern worlders dress down here in South Florida.
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com
FYI for EB,
I live in an area with more homosexuals per capita than San Franscisco. Homosexuals all over the country relocate to this area. The county I currently live in is know as the pot capital of the world. This is the area God has called me to harvest for His Kingdom.
I've worked with homosexuals. Went to lunch with them. Had them over to my house. Sat in the smoke room with them.
I've experienced enough legalism. I have observed the philosophy of legalism from the inside. I've seen the destruction it leaves in its path. Legalism is not portrayed in a favorable light in the Mew Testament.
pelathais
08-28-2007, 09:43 PM
The new issue of Time says Mother Teresa of Calcutta didn't believe in God. She had lost her faith in God during her lifetime working in India. She had no relationship, and no belief.
I'll let her nuns argue that one out. Time or the writer may also have an agenda. Dunno.
Modern world? I won't have my daughters dressing like some modern worlders dress down here in South Florida.
I was thinking more along the lines of everyone else's favorite topic of television. To advertise or not to advertise? To minister upon or not to minister upon...?
stmatthew
08-28-2007, 09:57 PM
I for one think the idea that someone would rather side with someone that is a homosexual, than a person that is just too strict in his interpretation of the Holy Bible is very telling of where that person stands.
I am really finding this difficult to grasp here. One person takes the word of God, and lives it too strictly, and expects others to do the same. The other blatantly rejects nature itself, and does that which is unnatural, and an abomination to God. There is no comparison!
Bump
Felicity
08-28-2007, 09:57 PM
and just because one is a DS does not mean they are Apostolic. It just means they are political.Not necessarily political at all. Very often "chosen" by his peers because .....
1) they respect the man
2) they acknowledge his leadership qualities, abilities, and ministry
3) because he's willing to serve (most of the time - sometimes conscripted :)) and
4) sometimes because there's nobody else. LOL! :)
Mother Theresa is bad because she questioned her faith at times?
Any christian who doesn't question their faith one time or the other.
I'll let her nuns argue that one out. Time or the writer may also have an agenda. Dunno.
I was thinking more along the lines of everyone else's favorite topic of television. To advertise or not to advertise? To minister upon or not to minister upon...?
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2007, 10:06 PM
FYI for EB,
I live in an area with more homosexuals per capita than San Franscisco.
You live in Fort Lauderdale?
Homosexuals all over the country relocate to this area.
Fort Lauderdale?
The county I currently live in is know as the pot capital of the world.
The Netherlands? So now legalists are equal to dope heads? Or should I say dope heads who are perverts?
This is the area God has called me to harvest for His Kingdom.
Lord bless it and reel'em in! Remember they are to be saved from their sin, not in their sin.
I've worked with homosexuals. Went to lunch with them. Had them over to my house. Sat in the smoke room with them.
Smoke? As in? You sat with them while they smoked dope?
I've experienced enough legalism. I have observed the philosophy of legalism from the inside. I've seen the destruction it leaves in its path. Legalism is not portrayed in a favorable light in the Mew Testament.
Explain what your idea of legalism in your own words.
Pastor Keith
08-28-2007, 10:09 PM
Bump
I disagree, if you take Paul's letter to the Galatian church legalism was cursed and was considered almost bewitching. I think he reserved his strongest rebukes and condemnation for Legalism.
But either way the practicing homosexual or legalist will both go to hell.
Fort Luaderdale has nothing on the area I live in. That's coming from a person I know who used to live in that area of Florida. Legalism has been defined, dig through the posts and find it.
You live in Fort Lauderdale?
Fort Lauderdale?
The Netherlands? So now legalists are equal to dope heads? Or should I say dope heads who are perverts?
Lord bless it and reel'em in! Remember they are to be saved from their sin, not in their sin.
Smoke? As in? You sat with them while they smoked dope?
Explain what your idea of legalism in your own words.
RevDWW
08-28-2007, 10:17 PM
If the opposite of homosexuality is being straight, the opposite of legalism is ________________?
pelathais
08-28-2007, 10:19 PM
If the opposite of homosexuality is being straight, the opposite of legalism is ________________?
False dichotomy.
RevDWW
08-28-2007, 10:30 PM
If the opposite of homosexuality is being straight, the opposite of legalism is ________________?
False dichotomy.
So are you stating, for the record, that legalism is false dichotomy?
Or that my question is an incorrect division of the two terms?
stmatthew
08-28-2007, 10:35 PM
If the opposite of homosexuality is being straight, the opposite of legalism is ________________?
illegalism??
stmatthew
08-28-2007, 10:38 PM
I disagree, if you take Paul's letter to the Galatian church legalism was cursed and was considered almost bewitching. I think he reserved his strongest rebukes and condemnation for Legalism.
But either way the practicing homosexual or legalist will both go to hell.
It depends upon ones definition of legalism. If legalism is a preacher reading the bible, and preaching for folks to obey it or they will be lost, I disagree with you. Is this considered "works based" salvation?? That was what Paul was dealing with.
RevDWW
08-28-2007, 10:41 PM
illegalism??
Is that something we should be shooting for?
We know that man and woman together make one flesh in marriage, it's good to be 'straight'.
What is the opposite of legalism that we should be striving after?
pelathais
08-28-2007, 11:29 PM
Sorry for the terseness of my earlier reply... I was moving between locations.
If the opposite of homosexuality is being straight, the opposite of legalism is ________________?
Your variables look like this:
gay=straight and so legalism=x
"Legalism" (however defined) is not contingent upon the meaning of gay or straight. The opposite of "gay" could be "up" and the outcome of the later part of your syllogism is still whatever the value of x is.
In other words, we could say:
"The opposite of ON is OFF; therefore the opposite of UP is DOWN."
While being, technically a TRUE statement, as a syllogism it is a false dichotomy. What if I said, "The opposite of ON is UNDER..." Would that change the meaning of "the opposite of UP is DOWN?" No. UP and DOWN are still opposites.
Therefore, your question presented the reader with a false dichotomy or even a false dilemma. By wording the question in such a way you were actually crafting your own response, not making an inquiry into truth.
pelathais
08-28-2007, 11:46 PM
In my own vocabulary, I suppose the opposite of "legalism" would be "the Christian faith."
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
You have not really seen, or I have failed to make it seen that a condemnation of "legalism" is not a condemnation of holiness or standards, per se.
To condemn legalism is to condemn a system or practice of religion that leaves God out of the equation. If you don't practice "legalism" then we have no argument. But you seem kind of touchy when it comes up.
Exactly!! Legalism is NOT what we do or how we look...legalism is a mindset...
Praxeas
08-29-2007, 02:15 AM
A common bond between a legalist and a homosexual is the blatent redefinition of terms and principles to fit their agenda. A homsexual's definition of a monogamous relationship is having intimate relations with one person at a time. It could be three or four a week, but one at a time.
The easiest example for the legalist is television/internet debate. The principle against televisions are not applied to internet. A legalist has a sliding scale for principle.
Legalism and homosexuality are built on shakey foundations.
Legalists and homosexuals live by their own set of rules and expect everyone else to do the same.
Homosexuals call it gay bashing when someone disagrees with their philosophy. Legalists cry persecution if someone disagrees with their philosophy.
As indicated earlier leglaists and homosexual are selective with applying principle. Both are abominations to God.
Those don't seem to be the definition of a Legalist, sorry. Yes a legalist can DO those things, but then again so can any non-legalist. You are adding your own definitions to the word legalist and then comparing it to homosexuality.
But even a liberal or an Antinomianist can do those things....
Praxeas
08-29-2007, 02:17 AM
Fort Luaderdale has nothing on the area I live in. That's coming from a person I know who used to live in that area of Florida. Legalism has been defined, dig through the posts and find it.
Or rather Legalism has been RE-defined here.
Praxeas
08-29-2007, 02:18 AM
In my own vocabulary, I suppose the opposite of "legalism" would be "the Christian faith."
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
I already posted what the opposite was
Antinomianism (from the Greek αντι, "against" + νομος, "law"), or lawlessness (in the Greek Bible: ανομια, which is "unlawful"), in theology, is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities. Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation.
pelathais
08-29-2007, 02:49 AM
I already posted what the opposite was
Antinomianism (from the Greek αντι, "against" + νομος, "law"), or lawlessness (in the Greek Bible: ανομια, which is "unlawful"), in theology, is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities. Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation.
I think you are looking at it like a 2 dimensional sort of spectrograph. A graph or spectrum where "legalism" is far to one end and whatever is "opposite" is at the other. In looking for that "opposite" you have chosen something that is linguistically an antonym but not the real "opposite" of "legalism" as it is used within the Christian tradition.
If "legalism" is the attempt by man to earn salvation through the works of either The Old Testament Law, or some other kind of law; then the opposite of legalism would be having salvation given as a gift. This is the standard theological and philosophical interpretation based upon the teachings of the New Testament.
Paul, in the NT was dealing with those who were attempting to earn salvation through the performance of all or part of the Mosaic Law. He denounced their attempts as futile.
In today's discussion on legalism, the "legalism" involved isn't the works of the OT Law, but works and traditions that have been built up over the last 100 years or so (really about 50 or 60 years) that people are expected to do in order to earn their salvation.
These traditions and "dress codes," when administered "legalistically" are the true antithesis of the Christian faith. We must first understand that salvation is a gift and cannot be earned. Then we must ask ourselves, now that I'm saved how shall I live out my life?
As long as NT salvation remains a free gift from God, the rest of the debate becomes largely cultural. It's still an important debate! But the salvation of my brothers and sisters who have followed the NT pattern for salvation is not in question because we may disagree on cultural issues.
Again, being against "legalism" doesn't mean you are against holiness or holiness standards. It means that you are against putting a man-made price tag on the gift that God has freely given to us.
pelathais
08-29-2007, 03:04 AM
I know that people accustomed to the Apostolic tradition might struggle with this at first, sometimes. This is because we have become used to hearing our critics say that "baptism" is "legalism," or that "telling people that they have to receive the Holy Ghost is legalism." But when we then turn to the NT and find our critics are wrong; we come away from that discussion with the wrong idea about "legalism."
Do not let such critics define your faith. If you are obedient to the teachings of the NT then you are not a "legalist." If someone tries to add to the NT or tried to earn salvation through the works of the Old Testament Law, then that's a legalist.
We will have debates about how to apply the NT teachings among ourselves until the cows come home. Interestingly enough, that also was the pattern of the NT Church!
Praxeas
08-29-2007, 03:58 AM
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism.htm
Legalism is like a disease. It is both highly contagious and deadly. It can go undetected and show no fatal symptoms for a long period of time. In the end, however, it always pays its toll. I’ve never heard anyone stand up and boldly proclaim, "I'm a legalist!" If someone realized they were bound by legalism they would surely put an end to it. Unfortunately legalism is very blinding. It's easier for a sinner to realize he is a sinner than for a legalist to realize he is a legalist.As long as we can’t identify what legalism is, it can keep us in its bondage.
Legalism is oftentimes very hard to recognize and can be hard to distinguish from true holiness. This is because the actions of the legalist, and the actions of someone who possesses true holiness are generally the same. The difference is the motive of the heart. One’s motivation is to save themselves, or keep themselves saved, while the other’s motivation is to please the One who died for them. Ray C. Stedman said:
Do you see how subtle this can be? The actual behavior can be exactly the same in the case of a legalist or of one behaving as an authentic Christian. They both may be real Christians and their behavior may be exactly the same, but one is legalistic and other is not. It is what is going on inside that is the issue in question. It is a matter of inner reliance. What are you reckoning on to meet this demand? Are you counting on your own ability, your own adequacy, your talent, your personality? Is that what you are reckoning on in order to accomplish what is expected of you? Well, if you are reckoning on anything other than the activity of God at work in you, you are a legalist! ... The most widespread form of legality in the Christian church is the flesh, trying to do something before God which will be acceptable to him.1 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism.htm#foot1)
In order to recognize what legalism is, we must first determine what true Christianity is. Christianity "is to manifest genuinely Christ-like behavior by dependence on the working of the Spirit of God within, motivated by a love for the glory and honor of God. True Christian life is fulfilling a law by means of a unique power because of an overwhelming desire. It requires an outward standard or code of behavior, an inward power which makes it possible to meet it, and a motive which drives us on to do so."2 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism.htm#foot2)
Legality on the other hand "is a mechanical and external behavior growing our [sic] of reliance on self, because of a desire to gain a reputation, display a skill, or satisfy an urge to personal power. . . . It is religious performance, scrupulous and meticulous in its outward form, but inwardly, as Jesus described it, ‘filled with dead men’s bones.’ "3 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism.htm#foot3)
Many believe that to avoid legalism, one must be an antinomianist (a person without any law). Nothing is further from the truth. Neither will the casting off of standards free one from legalism. Legalism is not the establishing of standards where the Bible does not address an issue. One must establish standards, or limitations for themselves. If one has a problem with playing tennis because it takes up too much of the time they should be spending with God, they might want to make a standard for themselves that they will not play tennis. It’s not that the game of tennis that is evil, but the individual gets addicted to the game and loses self-control, allowing priorities to be mismanaged. This limitation might change when they mature as a Christian and can play the sport again in moderation.
On the flip-side of the coin, it is legalism to establish standards for other people when the Bible does not address the issue. Even standards for one’s self can be dangerous if they have the wrong standard. It is possible to be legalistic in the standards you set for yourself. Legality then becomes a "making [of] unwarranted demands on yourself or on someone else, especially in areas which are not prohibited in the Scriptures.4 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism.htm#foot4)
There are some things that are black and white in the Scriptures, but others are differing shades of gray. Those areas that are black and white must be preached, and preached hard! Even though the Bible is dogmatic on many subjects, there are other subjects in which it is not. There are some things in which "we are given a great deal of personal liberty, and it is legalism to make standards (particularly for someone else) in these areas."5 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism.htm#foot5)
It is legalism when a Christian or group of Christians make rules for everybody else to obey. If others want to do the same things as a particular Christian groups, having the same convictions as they, that is great. If, however, they are being forced to do something against their will, or without understanding, it is legalism. It becomes legality when we make unwarranted demands upon others in areas not prohibited by Scripture.6 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism.htm#foot6)
Daniel Segraves wrote concerning legalism:
Essentially, legalism is a reliance upon keeping the strict letter of a law as being meritorious, even apart from faith. As legalism is worked out, it is often expressed in an exaltation of human traditions to a status equal to or superior to God's commandments or in a slavish adherence to a specific rule while failing to note the principle behind the rule and to apply it in similar situations. While the attractiveness of legalism for many people rests in its deceptive promise of assurance of salvation in return for perfect obedience, what it actually produces is fear, condemnation, guilt, and uncertainty. This is because the legalist's faith is misplaced. It is in himself and his ability to adhere to a code of behavior rather than in Christ.7 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism.htm#foot7)
"Legalism means strict or excessive conformity to a legal code or set of rules. In a Christian context, legalism has two negative connotations: (1) attempting to base salvation on the performance of good works or on the strict observance of rules and regulations and (2) imposing rules on self and others that are not based on clear biblical teachings or principles. We are guilty of legalism if we imply that a person attains salvation by his works or if we preach rules without principles."8 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism.htm#foot8) In fact, the basis upon which the legalist usually justifies his beliefs and practices is mere tradition and authority.
Praxeas
08-29-2007, 03:59 AM
One of the fundamental flaws of a legalistic individual is his/her view of God’s law. The law of God is not some external code that God keeps or has made up specifically for mankind. Neither is God’s law arbitrary. He does not simply decide to approve of this and condemn that. Rather God’s law flows from God’s nature. It is a portrait of God’s person. When we obey God’s law, we are not merely keeping a code of conduct, but relating to God Himself. The law has no inherent value or dignity apart from God. When we keep or break God’s law we are relating to God Himself. Sin is not merely the breaking of a law, but transgressing against the very nature of God, thus creating a personal attack on God Himself. Thus legalism—the idea that the law should be obeyed for its own sake—is unacceptable. The Law is a means of relating to a personal God. When we relate to the law as a separate entity apart from God’s essential being and nature, we have entered the arena of legalism.
Paul warned about an ascetic legalism that was attacking the first-century church in Colossians 2:18-23. He said that one could be cheated out of their reward in Christ by four things. These four things were (1) false, or voluntary humility, (2) worshipping of angels, (3) not giving Jesus His proper place as the Head of the body of Christ, (4) and "subjecting one's self to human commandments and doctrines which teach that there is a spiritual benefit in abstaining from perishable created things which are not inherently evil."9 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism.htm#foot9) These things do have an appearance of true wisdom, but it is merely a self-imposed religion that is not able to help a person overcome their sinful nature (v.23). The humility and worship that these ascetics were performing were not from God, but came from their own human will, contrary to what Jesus taught concerning the worship of God. He said worship was to come from one's spirit (John 4:24).
This passage makes it clear that anything we abstain from or partake of in this physical world should aid us in overcoming the sinful nature and bring us closer to God. If this is not the design behind our actions then it is probably legalism and obedience to it should not be commanded to anyone seeing it is only a man-made rule. If one believes that this man-made, self-imposed, false humility and religion can grant them spirituality, holiness, or favor with God, they will lose their reward in Christ.
What kind of legalism is attacking the Apostolic faith today? The most common form is that which leads "the believer away from absolute reliance upon Christ toward a self-confidence based on his ability to do or to abstain from certain things not specifically commended or prohibited in Scripture."10 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism.htm#foot10) Concerning this type of legalism Daniel Segraves comments:
But the second form of legalism is more subtle, more difficult to detect and resist, and more apt to find acceptance among believers of every age, because it adapts itself cleverly to any culture and time. This is the system that makes one's interpretation or application of Scripture equal in authority to Scripture itself. Every ascetic practice can, for example, be defended by general scriptural calls to devotion, commitment, and holiness. Even resistance to technological advances can be justified by appeals to disassociate ourselves from the world. This can be witnessed among the communities springing from the Anabaptists traditions which repudiate zippers, electricity, automobiles and other modern inventions.11 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism.htm#foot11)
Legalism teaches a salvation that is based upon human works instead of God's grace. This type of theology usually develops from a misunderstanding of how and where works fit into the born-again life. Legalism is a mentality, that leads to a way of life, which leads to doctrines not found in the Bible, which leads to a reliance upon one's performance, instead of Jesus' performance at Calvary for salvation, which leads to spiritual death.
The problems with legalism are endless. The worst problem is the eternal factor. If one relies upon their own works for salvation they will not make it to heaven no matter how moral they are seeing that they are going about to establish their own righteousness instead of relying upon the righteousness and grace of God (Galatians 2:21; 5:1-4). Salvation only comes by faith in Jesus' work at Calvary. One can not have faith in Jesus' work and their own at the same time.
David Bernard commented on the difficulties of a legalistic system by saying:
Furthermore, those who follow a legalistic leader will eventually begin to doubt the validity of the system because of its harsh and arbitrary rules. As children grow up in the system they begin to question the rules. When new converts enter the system they often accept everything uncritically, but sooner or later they, too, begin to analyze the rules.
If a church is founded on true scriptural principles it will withstand scrutiny of its teachings. The legalist, however, usually gives no justification for his man-made rules except tradition and authority. "This is what our church believes, and you must obey the church. This is what the pastor teaches, and you must obey the pastor." This kind of teaching will not be successful in developing true holiness.
Particularly in our questioning age, it simply does not work. People today are more sophisticated and educated than ever before. There is a greater willingness to challenge tradition and authority. Autocratic methods that people sometimes accepted in the past are less effective today. Furthermore, as the church enters an era of great revival, it must be prepared for the influx of thousands of new converts. If it relies on tradition and legalism, the new converts will either overwhelm it or fall away. If it teaches biblical principles of holiness, the new converts will embrace them as their own beliefs.12 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism.htm#foot12)
Legalists always exhibit certain characteristics. Among the many, they exhibit periods of great highs and lows based upon their performance, frustrations with trying to become more holy, contentious, condemnatory towards others who don't do as they do, a lack of patience with others growing in holiness, and usually like to control others.
Legalism is not teaching against separation from the world. Rather it is believing that you can be saved from doing so. The Bible teaches us to be holy. If teaching separation from the world is legalism, then God is the best legalist! It is God who said that friendship with the world is enmity against Him (James 4:4). It is God's Word that tells us that true religion is to keep oneself unspotted from the world (James 1:27). It is the Word of God that declares if you love the world, then you do not love God (I John 2:15-16). If you do not love these commandments you do not love God. One will not find antinomianism in the Bible.
The legalist and a true holy man or woman of God may have the same "works," but they both have different understandings and perspectives of how and where their works fit into their salvation
The legalist believes his works earn or keep his salvation, while the holy man or woman of God understand that they are living the way they do because they are saved. They just want to please their Lover. As Stedman said, "That is why, in any Christian activity, you have to be careful that your inner reliance is on God and not upon yourself. Otherwise it comes out all wrong and makes all the difference between heaven and hell, life and death. You can do exactly the same thing that someone else is doing and, if you do it with a sense of reliance on anything other than the Spirit of God, what they do will bless people but what you do will curse them."13 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism.htm#foot13)
So what do you do if you realize that you are in bondage to legalism? It is very simple. All you must do is repent for your sin and believe that God’s mercy has forgiven you, and that His grace will help you live above this vice. Repent and believe. It seems too easy to be real, but it is the way that God has established. You can not work to please God, so why not just give up and allow God to justify you by your faith and trust in Him!
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism.htm
Praxeas
08-29-2007, 04:01 AM
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism2.htm
There are different aspects to, or different manifestations of legalism. The following are the most notable:
1. A reliance on one's own performance to merit favor before God, rather than relying on Christ's performance at Calvary on their behalf
2. Relating to God on the basis of works rather than on the basis of faith (an extension of the former)
3. Confusing personal convictions/persuasions with Biblical mandates, ascribing equal authority to both categories
4. Enforcing extra-Biblical moral standards on other Christians (an extension of point 3).
The difference between the 3rd and 4th form of legalism could be summed up as "private vs. public." The 3rd form of legalism is when one is personally confused, not able to distinguish the difference between the Biblical commands and personal convictions/ persuasions. The 4th form of legalism is an extension of the 3rd, manifested when the individual suffering from the 3rd form turns his personal confusion into a public mandate, requiring all saints within his authority/influence to abide by his extra-Biblical standards.
Examples of legalism
Most of us are familiar with the famous comic, Jeff Foxworthy. While he has his famous redneck test ("you might be a redneck if…"), I have my not so famous legalist test ("you might be a legalist if…"). Here are some illustrations of the four types of legalism named above.
1. If you think you must become good enough, or do a certain number of good works in order to be saved and/or maintain your salvation status with God…you might be a legalist. If, when you sin you feel as though you cannot come before God until you have met some sort of probationary period to regain your worthiness…you might be a legalist.
2. If, when you think about the way God sees you you can only think of your good or bad works, rather than thinking about your acceptance before God in Jesus Christ…you might be a legalist.
3. If you elevate Christian traditions (particularly moral traditions) to a status on par with the teaching of Scripture itself…you might be a legalist.
4. If you require others to live in the same manner as you do, and yet you cannot find the behavior you are prescribing or prohibiting in Scripture…you might be a legalist.
Legalism is a Universal Tendency of Mankind
Legalism is common to us all In one degree or another because it is consistent with man's nature. We want to do everything on our own; i.e. we are self-sufficient. This is even evident in toddlers who commonly say "I do it!!!, I do it!!!" with great anger and vigor when mom or dad try to do something for them. Human beings like being in control. That's why we rebelled against God to begin with. We didn't want God to hold that place of authority over us. So when it comes to good works we look at them as the way in which we can control our salvation. If we are bad, we forfeit salvation; if we are good, we earn it.
That is why the message of salvation by faith in Christ apart from good works is so difficult for us to accept. We want to be able to have some control over our salvation, to make some sort of contribution as it were, and yet the Gospel says "Christ did it all, and there's nothing more you can add to it. You must accept what Christ did for you on your behalf, or you will die in your sins." That's why Paul noted in Galatians 5:3-4 that if you trust in your works (circumcision in the case of the Galatians) Christ will profit you nothing. He said that those who trusted in their works (circumcision) had fallen from grace. How? It was because they were trusting in what they could do, working for a reward (salvation) rather than trusting in what God did for them and accepting salvation as the unmerited free gift of God that it is. Those with a legalistic mentality forget that God justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5:), thinking rather that they must become godly before God will accept them.
Works (in the sense of doing good things with the idea that by doing such you will earn your favor before God, not in the sense of obedience to God's commands out of a love for Him and in appreciation of His act of salvation on our behalf) are opposed to faith/grace. They are antithetical. It is like hot and cold water. You can get both out of the same faucet, but not at the same time. If you are using cold water, you cannot get hot water. If you are using hot water, you cannot get cold water.
Likewise if you are relating to God on the basis of your works, you cannot receive grace. But if you are relating to God on the basis of your faith, there is no room for works. Works require a reward. Grace does not. We cannot be saved by our works because that is not the way salvation comes to man. It comes as a free gift only. But you cannot give a gift to someone who has earned it (Rom 4:1-8). So when one works for their salvation, God cannot give them salvation because His salvation is free, not a reward for good behavior. That is why there can be no grace in the presence of works. To rely on one's own performance for their justification before God is to fall from grace.
Praxeas
08-29-2007, 04:02 AM
Obedience is Not a Work
Building on my disclaimer in the above paragraph concerning works, many people misunderstand the Biblical meaning of "works." Too often in Evangelical circles it is interpreted to mean "anything we (have to) do." This is not true. A more precise definition would be "anything we (have to) do to earn our salvation." The key word is "earn." This misunderstanding can result in some pretty messed up teachings. For example, the Bible seems pretty clear that baptism is part of salvation (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; I Pet 3:21) because it involves the remission of sins and death to sin's dominion over our lives (Romans 6).
It accomplishes a spiritual reality, and is not just a public confession of faith in Christ. Yet some theologians will do some fancy exegetical gymnastics to get around the clear teaching of Scripture in this regard because they reason that if baptism is necessary for salvation, to be baptized is to do something that affects our salvation, making baptism a work. Since Scripture is clear that we are not saved by works they conclude that baptism is not part of salvation. That is what happens when a work is defined as anything we do. But using this unbiblical definition of works would not only make baptism a work, but would make repentance a work as well because it is something that we have to do as well. But if repentance is a work, salvation becomes impossible.
Put pointedly, some Evangelicals have confused works with obedience. We need only ask ourselves "Who is doing the work in repentance and baptism? It is us, or is it God?" Clearly it is God. What do we do? We just make a decision to turn our lives around and confess our sins, and a decision to get in a tub of water. We are simply being obedient to His word. We are not contributing anything to our salvation. We are merely putting ourselves in the place where God can give us His salvation freely. That is why Paul spoke of the "obedience of faith" (Rom 1, 16) True faith leads to obedience, but that obedience is not a work because the obedience itself does not earn us anything.
Clearly when we repent and get baptized we are contributing nothing to our salvation. There is no work involved, only obedience. God is the one performing the spiritual work. Using the common definition of "works" and applying it consistently would lead us to conclude that we don't have to repent, be baptized, or obey any commandment found in Scripture. Clearly such is not the case. When we repent God is the one forgiving us. When we are baptized God is the one performing the spiritual work. When we live right we do so only because God gives us the grace to do so, and out of love for the God who saved us. It is only if we are being obedient with the idea that our obedience demands that God reward us with salvation are our works "works" in the Biblical sense of the word.
Conservatism is not Legalism
Another thing Christians often confuse is conservatism for legalism. This is unfortunate. There is a difference between a morally conservative individual and a legalistic individual, although to most Christians they are one and the same. The difference is not in their actions per se, but in how they think about their actions (mentality). The legalist thinks his right behavior grants him favor before God that He otherwise would not have had, or he thinks his right behavior can keep him saved. A morally conservative individual understands that no amount of good works can earn one favor with God and that no one can do good works without the grace of God, but also understands that we are to do good works because we have been saved (Eph 2:9-10). For this individual good works are an act of love toward a gracious God because we have been saved by Him, not personal achievements that we must meet in order to be saved.
There is no question that we must be holy, and that holiness applies to every area of our lives. Too many Christians, however, fail to apply Biblical holiness principles to their lives consistently. They do not apply them when it comes to where they go, what they say, what they watch, what they listen to, what they do, how they look, etc. When they encounter other Christians who are concerned about those areas and are applying Biblical principles to the same it is easy to label them as legalists, or simply as conservatives, and have sort of a disdain for them as though they are too radical. I do not think these people are all that conservative, or too radical. I think the majority of us are simply too laxed when it comes to being holy. Those we often look at as conservatives or ultra-conservatives are simply being consistent in their holiness, not relegating it to certain parts of their lives while ignoring the application of holiness to others. But when you are on the far left, those on the right look like they are far far away, even if they are only moderately to the right!
I do not think we can be too conservative when it comes to Biblical morality and applying Biblical principles to every part of our lives. I am not opposed to ultra-conservatives in the least. What I am opposed to are conservatives turned legalists, damning and condemning everyone who does not do as they do. That is when it turns ugly, and when the title of "legalist" is justified.
As long as what we are doing is unto the Lord is a good thing. Even if something is not technically a sin in God's eyes, what matters is that the person who refrains from doing whatever it is that they think is wrong is refraining from doing it as unto the Lord. That's what matters-not whether they are right or wrong per se (see Romans 14; I Cor 8, 10). They are doing it for His sake, trying to please Him, and such an attitude is pleasing to God. Conservatism, or ultra-conservatism only becomes bad when we think that our works can bring us salvation, or when we impose our extra-Biblical persuasions on others, or judge those who do not line up with our own personal moral standards.
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/legalism2.htm
OP_Carl
08-29-2007, 04:22 AM
The easiest example for the legalist is television/internet debate. The principle against televisions are not applied to internet. A legalist has a sliding scale for principle.:footinmouth
TV vs. Internet = Push vs. Pull media (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=227081#post227081)
Legalism and homosexuality are built on shakey foundations. One is the pursuit of salvation by adding the law to free grace. The other is the pursuit of flesh and self. I'm not sure this comparison is accurate.
Legalists and homosexuals live by their own set of rules and expect everyone else to do the same.I agree.
Homosexuals call it gay bashing when someone disagrees with their philosophy. Legalists cry persecution if someone disagrees with their philosophy. I thought that if someone disagrees with a legalist's philosopy, they would cry. :uhoh :rolleyes2 :D
As indicated earlier leglaists and homosexual are selective with applying principle. Both are abominations to God.
Where is the scripture that applies the word "abomination" to Christians adding the law of Moses to their faith?
Evang.Benincasa
08-29-2007, 05:18 AM
I disagree, if you take Paul's letter to the Galatian church legalism was cursed and was considered almost bewitching. I think he reserved his strongest rebukes and condemnation for Legalism.
But either way the practicing homosexual or legalist will both go to hell.
Paul was a legalist Jew who was teaching Gentiles not to be taken in by legalist Judaizers.
The Legalist Judaizers were compelling the converted Gentiles to be circumcised in order for the Gentiles to become physical Jews.
The Judaizers wanted Christianity to become a religion like to their Jewish religion. It was more about the outward and making one physically part of a race.
To say that those who preach standards, and abstaining from television to be legalists and using the letter to the Galatians to prove that standard preachers are legalists is a far stretch indeed.
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com
Evang.Benincasa
08-29-2007, 05:20 AM
I know that people accustomed to the Apostolic tradition might struggle with this at first, sometimes. This is because we have become used to hearing our critics say that "baptism" is "legalism," or that "telling people that they have to receive the Holy Ghost is legalism." But when we then turn to the NT and find our critics are wrong; we come away from that discussion with the wrong idea about "legalism."
Do not let such critics define your faith. If you are obedient to the teachings of the NT then you are not a "legalist." If someone tries to add to the NT or tried to earn salvation through the works of the Old Testament Law, then that's a legalist.
We will have debates about how to apply the NT teachings among ourselves until the cows come home. Interestingly enough, that also was the pattern of the NT Church!
Define works?
Evang.Benincasa
08-29-2007, 05:38 AM
Fort Luaderdale has nothing on the area I live in.
Have you ever been to Fort Lauderdale?
That's coming from a person I know who used to live in that area of Florida.
Here say? You are going to form an opinion from what some individual mentioned about the "AREA"? What "AREA" exactly did this person live?
How long ago did he or she live in the "area" when they were 6 back in 1964?
Tell you what tv1a come back when you have properly followed up your bad lead. Wilton Manors Florida had the first ALL HOMOSEXUAL city council in the United States. Wilton Manors is a city in the "area" of Fort Ladee Daa.
By the way where do you live?
Legalism has been defined, dig through the posts and find it.
I saw the definition that Prax gave you and I think you had given him a blurb of what you felt legalism to be, if you don't want to take a millisecond to type your thought again no problem. I'm getting use to this type of behavior on the forum. ;)
Have you ever had chicken jambalaya? Or would you have a friend eat it and just tell you if it was good or bad?
I strongly advise you to try the chicken jambalaya.
OP_Carl
08-29-2007, 07:15 AM
Paul was a legalist Jew who was teaching Gentiles not to be taken in by legalist Judaizers.
The Legalist Judaizers were compelling the converted Gentiles to be circumcised in order for the Gentiles to become physical Jews.
The Judaizers wanted Christianity to become a religion like to their Jewish religion. It was more about the outward and making one physically part of a race.
To say that those who preach standards, and abstaining from television to be legalists and using the letter to the Galatians to prove that standard preachers are legalists is a far stretch indeed.
:thumbsup
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! :hanky :rooting :cheer :hanky :rooting :cheer :hanky
Give the man a cigar! :thumbsup
No, wait, he's probably against them. The LEGALIST! :uhoh :irate :ranting
:nah
:D
We all know what happened to the little boy who cried 'wolf.'
:thebunny
What happens to the the little antinomianist who cries 'legalist!'???
:faint
philjones
08-29-2007, 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=227765#post227765)
Can you compare the two? Just because a man preaches against television or short sleeves does that put him on the same level as a deviant? The question is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=227848#post227848)
Yes, I agree. But I also observe that you're the one who "asked" the question. You framed it yourself to fit fit the "ridiculous" conclusion.
EB: "Wrong, I didn't start this thread, so my conclusion of it being ridiculous is well founded. My choice of using a man who preaches against television as an example was done because the Pentecostal/Charismatic view of "Legalism" is just that."
Pelathais: The question that you asked, to which I refered was, "Just because a man preaches against television or short sleeves does that put him on the same level as a deviant?"
I then pointed out that you asked that question, not me. I never made that comparison, you brought it up and then slam dunked it. The discussion is becoming something where you are arguing with yourself and the arguments that you imagine that I would make. We are also losing something in the quote and paste routines.
You have not really seen, or I have failed to make it seen that a condemnation of "legalism" is not a condemnation of holiness or standards, per se.
To condemn legalism is to condemn a system or practice of religion that leaves God out of the equation. If you don't practice "legalism" then we have no argument. But you seem kind of touchy when it comes up.
Pelathais,
Why was the per se necessary in your statement I bolded? Why not just make the statement? Inclusion of the "by itself" would indicate that the standards or holiness are condemned just not by themselves.
If I am reading your arguments correctly, your argument is not against traditional standards but against the substitution of these standards or holiness guidelines for a personal relationship with God. I do not think you will get any argument from any conservative on this board concerning this viewpoint.
Unfortunately, most (you may not be included) who run around waving the "dangers of legalism" banner DO NOT view legalism nor judge fairly those they deem legalistic. In the majority of the flag wavers eyes anyone who maintains standards of separation MUST be legalistic. This is what causes the defensiveness you mentioned in your last sentence. It is only natural to throw your hands up to protect yourself when the normal experience is a pummeling of condemnation for way you have chosen to worship the God of your salvation.
Surprisingly, you don't seem to find the bleeding heart liberals defensive when they object to their portrayal as believing there are no absolutes. To say it like a real conservative, they don't believe fat meat is greasy!:hypercoffee
So, where do we go from here? Can the loose living liberals ever accept that the conservatives are not legalists and can the legalistic conservatives ever accept that the liberals are simply allowing the Holy Ghost to guide them in their personal lifestyle? I am afraid that this is a breach that is seldom ever bridged.
philjones
08-29-2007, 07:40 AM
I think you are looking at it like a 2 dimensional sort of spectrograph. A graph or spectrum where "legalism" is far to one end and whatever is "opposite" is at the other. In looking for that "opposite" you have chosen something that is linguistically an antonym but not the real "opposite" of "legalism" as it is used within the Christian tradition.
If "legalism" is the attempt by man to earn salvation through the works of either The Old Testament Law, or some other kind of law; then the opposite of legalism would be having salvation given as a gift. This is the standard theological and philosophical interpretation based upon the teachings of the New Testament.
Paul, in the NT was dealing with those who were attempting to earn salvation through the performance of all or part of the Mosaic Law. He denounced their attempts as futile.
In today's discussion on legalism, the "legalism" involved isn't the works of the OT Law, but works and traditions that have been built up over the last 100 years or so (really about 50 or 60 years) that people are expected to do in order to earn their salvation.
These traditions and "dress codes," when administered "legalistically" are the true antithesis of the Christian faith. We must first understand that salvation is a gift and cannot be earned. Then we must ask ourselves, now that I'm saved how shall I live out my life?
As long as NT salvation remains a free gift from God, the rest of the debate becomes largely cultural. It's still an important debate! But the salvation of my brothers and sisters who have followed the NT pattern for salvation is not in question because we may disagree on cultural issues.
Again, being against "legalism" doesn't mean you are against holiness or holiness standards. It means that you are against putting a man-made price tag on the gift that God has freely given to us.
Pelathais,
You seem to like setting your own rules for how this discussion must occur. I find that your spectrum and graph are the ones that fit your position the best while Prax' represents a more honest view of the situation. Your view is the one that fits your argument the best.
You are obviously intelligent and well educated; educated by what I view as apostate Christianity as well as traditional Apostolic tradition. You seem to have chosen to embrace the apostate's positions in an effort attack the traditions which birthed you. I hope that I am wrong.
I think in this post you have revealed the reason for the per se. You DO actually feel that anyone who holds to a particular traditional Pentecostal standard is and MUST be a legalist! You may say otherwise but your words oppose you.
mizpeh
08-29-2007, 07:51 AM
Prax, Pelathais, Phil,
This discussion has now become much more interesting and relevant. Thank you :driving
Truly Blessed
08-29-2007, 09:37 AM
It depends upon ones definition of legalism. If legalism is a preacher reading the bible, and preaching for folks to obey it or they will be lost, I disagree with you. Is this considered "works based" salvation?? That was what Paul was dealing with.Any teaching that makes man's performance the basis for his salvation is legalism. Paul makes it very clear that salvation is by grace through faith, and even our faith is not of ourselves, so that no one can boast that their own works have saved them. Some folks have a hard time accepting that a person cannot save themselves. Man's effort to save himself always ends up as legalism.
Steve Epley
08-29-2007, 09:43 AM
Any teaching that makes man's performance the basis for his salvation is legalism. Paul makes it very clear that salvation is by grace through faith, and even our faith is not of ourselves, so that no one can boast that their own works have saved them. Some folks have a hard time accepting that a person cannot save themselves. Man's effort to save himself always ends up as legalism.
Like BELIEVING and REPENTANCE and BEING FAITHFUL??????
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.