Holiness vs. Legalism

[Luke]

The major fundamental deifference of leagalism and holiness is very simply the motivation.

Legalism says "if i work hard enough this will save me."

Holiness says "I want to be like my Father."

Another difference is seen in how legalism and holiness come about.

Leagism is man saying "I can do this on my own."

Holiness is man coming to God to be so that God can change man.

One last distinction that i will point out (though there are numerous more)

Legalism mows the grass and then considers itself pious.

Holiness pulls sin out by the roots and then sprinkles preen weed and feed so it wont come back.

Both holiness and legalism deal with the outside but legalism uses suppression while Holiness deals death to the roots so the outside stays clean.

[MarieA27]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

Are you denying the Authority and Inspiration of the Scriptures? I ask because all of the Scriptures I listed prove that there is nothing hidden from the child of God and that we were given the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth and have no need that any man teach us.

The part in bold is not true. God always had a man teach us. He always taught the man( His preacher), but the man was to teach us what God had taught him. All throughout the bible there's examples of that. Just because we have the Holy Ghost, doesn't mean we don't need to get taught anymore. If so, then all those letters to the church wouldn't have been needed, the apostles would have just told them to let God teach them, since they have the Holy Ghost.

And the reason that all of these churches are gone astray, even when they have the Holy Ghost, is because, instead of them truly listening and letting the Holy Ghost guide them to all truth, they let flesh get in the way, and go after their own lust, and let the spirit of the devil guide them to the way they were leaning, instead of letting everything go for God, so He would guide them to where He wanted them, to the truth.

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by MarieA27

The part in bold is not true. God always had a man teach us. He always taught the man( His preacher), but the man was to teach us what God had taught him. All throughout the bible there's examples of that. Just because we have the Holy Ghost, doesn't mean we don't need to get taught anymore. If so, then all those letters to the church wouldn't have been needed, the apostles would have just told them to let God teach them, since they have the Holy Ghost.

And the reason that all of these churches are gone astray, even when they have the Holy Ghost, is because, instead of them truly listening and letting the Holy Ghost guide them to all truth, they let flesh get in the way, and go after their own lust, and let the spirit of the devil guide them to the way they were leaning, instead of letting everything go for God, so He would guide them to where He wanted them, to the truth.

Marie, I recognize and fully accept the role of the five-fold ministry in the Church today. They are gifts given to us by God, "for the equipping of the saints, for the work of ministry." I am myself, am a teacher, very active both in Church and Para-Church ministry as well as on the Faculty of two Bible Colleges.

But we need, as teachers of the Word of God, to be extremely careful of our words. (I make mistakes all the time, unfortunately!) Your comment in bold is simply incorrect. The statement you object to, is not my own. It comes directly from the pages of Scripture:

1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

I am afraid you are mistaken in your assertion.The pastor is a Shepherd who leads and guides and yes, feeds the flock. But they were never intended in any way to be our sole source of spiritual nourishment. That is simply not a Biblical concept. Each of us is commanded by Scripture to be responsible for our own understanding of the Word.

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The Apostle Paul was a pretty good teacher of the Word. He wrote a majority of the NT. And yet, not even the words of Paul were simply accepted without verification.

Acts 17:10-12
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

They didn't accept things as true until they had proven them by the Holy Spirit through their personal study of Scripture. Because of that practice, not Paul's preaching, it says that many believed.
To follow your belief to it's logical conclusion has led many into serious error. they end up following a man rather than the Scriptures under the guidance of the Spirit. Hence we have today, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Campbelites, Russelites (Jehovah's Witnesses), a myriad of other cults, as well as such tragedies as Jonestown and Waco. All of these were direct results of exactly the kind of thinking you described.

Let me be clear, I believe wholeheartedly that God has give to the Church, gifted men to lead, inspire, teach and protect. But never once in the pages of the Bible are those ever intended to serve in the way you describe. We are to "work out our own salvation, with fear and trembling."

Joshua 1:8
8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

My physical body will not function properly if I eat only three a week. By the same token, my spirit will not function at it's best if I only feed it on Sunday's and Wednesday. We are to have a steady diet, preferably daily. If we read our Bibles the way we read our newspapers we'd all be the better for it.

John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:

The abuse of the truth by some can never allow the rejection of the truth by the many.

[Livelystone]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

Are you denying the Authority and Inspiration of the Scriptures? I ask because all of the Scriptures I listed prove that there is nothing hidden from the child of God ?

A rebuke is very serious and I only use it when I hear Satan speaking through someone. The first time I rebuked you was when you called me a false prophet and the 2nd time is as I have quoted again is your passive aggressive suggestion I am denying the Scriptures. I expect you to be man enough not to run and hide behind the passive aggressiveness expressed in your words because your intention has already been noted both on earth and in heaven that corresponds with your "false prophet" accusation of me. Fair enough?

The Bible makes it very clear that there are both good teachers and bad teachers who still need to be taught the rudiments of the truth. Those who do not use all Scriptures that pertain to the subject are denying the 1st rudiments of the truth and in doing so have committed the sin of forcing a witness to remain silent. (Leviticus 5:1)

You're telling Marie that she is wrong in needing teachers (because they know the truth and have God's approval on them) while quoting a verse from the epistle of John while at the same you have obviously either through intention or ignorance overlooked the fact that John is speaking only of those who have the Holy Spirit abiding in them. In other words they have not just been given the Holy Spirit, but because they've been taught the truth and have the love of God in their heart the Holy Spirit is abiding them allowing them to overcome the deeds and desires of Satan.

Do you understand the difference between being given the Holy Spirit and having the Holy Spirit abiding in you? Because there is a major difference, and the only time Christians sin is when the Holy Spirit is not the spirit that is abiding in their heart at the time that they have committed the sin......... and that you can take to the bank!

John had already addressed the situation before you took one verse of his while choosing to ignore the others that describe those who had the Holy Spirit abiding in them. Take a look earlier in the chapter;

John 2:13
I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.

Both of the above have been given the Holy Spirit otherwise it would not be children of God let alone “young men” who have not yet become “fathers a.k.a. elders”. The difference between the young men and the children is overcoming the wicked one that is only accomplished by having the Holy Spirit abiding in one's heart. I already have a thread here explaining what happens when Christians fall back into sin because the Holy Spirit has left their heart. Suggest you spend some time there.

Our hearts are pictured as the lamps in the room of the holies that had to be trimmed daily, or in other words if they were not trimmed daily as in having additional oil added to them they no longer burned. Hopefully, the teaching is not lost in the metaphor.

In conclusion:

It is very apparent that you have not yet overcome Satan because you are quick to make false accusations revealing your lack of knowledge of the truth.

Several times since I've been here you have exhibited signs of immaturity patting yourself on the back while putting other people down and I'm not the 1st to say this.

You are a teacher who still needs to be taught!

Blessings

Doug

[larrylyates]

Your post is interesting. You accuse me falsely, the very thing you claim I had done to you. I never once told Sister Marie that she didn't need teachers. I have no idea where you got that. What I actually said was:

Marie, I recognize and fully accept the role of the five-fold ministry in the Church today. They are gifts given to us by God, "for the equipping of the saints, for the work of ministry."
The pastor is a Shepherd who leads and guides and yes, feeds the flock. But they were never intended in any way to be our sole source of spiritual nourishment. That is simply not a Biblical concept. Each of us is commanded by Scripture to be responsible for our own understanding of the Word.

Let me be clear, I believe wholeheartedly that God has given to the Church, gifted men to lead, inspire, teach and protect.

I did point out the problem with the particular way of thinking followed by some:

To follow your belief to its logical conclusion has led many into serious error. they end up following a man rather than the Scriptures under the guidance of the Spirit. Hence we have today, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Campbelites, Russelites (Jehovah's Witnesses), a myriad of other cults, as well as such tragedies as Jonestown and Waco. All of these were direct results of exactly the kind of thinking you described.

Can you show me where I told her she didn't need teachers?

[Livelystone]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

Your post is interesting. You accuse me falsely, the very thing you claim I had done to you. I never once told Sister Marie that she didn't need teachers. I have no idea where you got that. What I actually said was:

Marie, I recognize and fully accept the role of the five-fold ministry in the Church today. They are gifts given to us by God, "for the equipping of the saints, for the work of ministry."
The pastor is a Shepherd who leads and guides and yes, feeds the flock. But they were never intended in any way to be our sole source of spiritual nourishment. That is simply not a Biblical concept. Each of us is commanded by Scripture to be responsible for our own understanding of the Word.

Let me be clear, I believe wholeheartedly that God has given to the Church, gifted men to lead, inspire, teach and protect.

I did point out the problem with the particular way of thinking followed by some:

To follow your belief to its logical conclusion has led many into serious error. they end up following a man rather than the Scriptures under the guidance of the Spirit. Hence we have today, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Campbelites, Russelites (Jehovah's Witnesses), a myriad of other cults, as well as such tragedies as Jonestown and Waco. All of these were direct results of exactly the kind of thinking you described.

Can you show me where I told her she didn't need teachers?

Have a little respect to the truth larry

Your whole todo to Mary was not needing teachers because we have the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.......... when she pointed out in bold to you that teacher are needed you said the following words

These are your words !!!

Originally Posted by larrylyates

Your comment in bold is simply incorrect. The statement you object to, is not my own. It comes directly from the pages of Scripture:

And what is your supoport for linking me to this?

Originally Posted by larrylyates

a myriad of other cults, as well as such tragedies as Jonestown and Waco. All of these were direct results of exactly the kind of thinking you described.
[/I]

Fair enough?

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by Livelystone

Have a little respect to the truth larry

Your whole todo to Mary was not needing teachers because we have the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.......... when she pointed out in bold to you that teacher are needed you said the following words

These are your words !!!



And what is your supoport for linking me to this !@#$%^&*()

a myriad of other cults, as well as such tragedies as Jonestown and Waco. All of these were direct results of exactly the kind of thinking you described.


Fair enough?

No Doug, not "fair enough." You continue to misrepresent me. A partial truth is still a complete lie. You very craftily, dissect the statement I made while completely ignoring every single qualifier I offered to her to demonstrate the Biblical role of teachers.

What I said to Marie needs to be seen in context:

Your comment in bold is simply incorrect. The statement you object to, is not my own. It comes directly from the pages of Scripture:

1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

"Ye need not that any man teach you:" does that phrase appear in your Bible or not?

"all of the Scriptures I listed prove that there is nothing hidden from the child of God and that we were given the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth and have no need that any man teach us."

Can you show me please the linguistic difference between the two statements?

As for your concluding question? None of those remarks were directed toward you. Why are you responding in this way? Those remarks were made in my post to Marie and had nothing to do with you. Nothing at all.

However, two things I would like to call to your attention:

We do not allow any rebuking, hatefulness, name calling, or verbal attacks by any person or group of people, toward any person or group of people. Content that is unseemly, using bad language, or any form of insinuating bad language (i.e. one letter and ****), or offensive slang, is not permitted.

This administration knows that God's Word allows for rebuking and correction under certain conditions, but because of the lack of understanding by some, as well as the differing views by a multitude of readers here, and for the sake of peace, we will not permit it under any circumstances.

You are in direct violation of all of the above. Furthermore, you leave me a bit confused. Your cursing is sin, yet you state that this is simply not possible for those with your level of understanding and abiding in the Spirit.

Your problem with 1 John 2:27 is between you and God. Your objection is to the words of the Holy Writ, not with me. Agree with me or not I don't care, but do not try to deny that God said it.

I too have had issues with some others on this forum. I have had to apologize to several people for allowing my own rhetoric to get out of hand. The ability on AFF to have rational discourse with those of like precious faith is highly impeded. This is apparently the case here. I am sorry for that. In the Early Church the Prophets were subject to one another and everything to be judged according to the Word by the others. You don't seem to respond well to that so I have refrained in the last several weeks from commenting on your posts.

[Godsdrummer]

I just have one thing to say, having just read this whole thread, while enjoying my first cup of coffee, then reading the authors description of a modern day prophet.

1Co 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
1Co 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
1Co 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
1Co 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Anyone that comes claiming to be a prophet, and claims to have new understanding of some lost teaching of 2000 years, should be marked.

[SwordSainT]

I believe this can go on forever until the line is crossed between a principle and a law. Holiness, just like righteousness is a principle. Principles are eternal and cannot be changed. When a church connects with the PRINCIPLE of holiness the expression of that principle will show in the church.

Legalism is laws and therefore will always be subject to times, situations or circumstances. Laws can be bent, broken or challenged but principles cant.

Example: Holiness in dress for a lady would say "you ought to dress like a women and not like a man" Holiness in a legal form would say "your skirt length must be 30" or else its unholy". There is a big difference.

Ive been a youth Pastor for over 10 years and ive never had to paint a law (much) to people who have a grip on God. They usually will be lead to git rid of certain things and have the same conviction based on what they have SEEN, HEARD, and FELT by God.

[Godsdrummer]

Ive been a youth Pastor for over 10 years and ive never had to paint a law (much) to people who have a grip on God. They usually will be lead to git rid of certain things and have the same conviction based on what they have SEEN, HEARD, and FELT by God.

I fell I must resopond to this, it just came at me the wrong way. Mostly because Ihave been in the ministry over 40 years. I have seen all types of teachings in the church, from pastors that were authoritatian, to pastors that most would call liberal. What gets me is that the spirit of God was manifest in all these meetings. I am remminded of one verse of scripture, "God does not dwell in an unclean vessal". Years ago my family attened a church for two years where the pastor did not teach standards, my Sunday school teacher wore pants and had cut hair. Yes she was a women. The same family had a, (God forbid, a tv) as did many in the church. Yet the spirit of God was in the lives of these wonderful people. Yet many would say they were on their way to hell, because they were not holy, based on their definition of holiness.

Holiness IS NOT OUTWARD APPERAL, holiness is the inner man of the heart, as Peter describes in I Peter 3. People will in fact be lead to get rid of certain things by What they have Seen, Heard, and Felt, but it is not God that has taught them, rather what they have seen, heard and felt within the society (church) they attend.

An example of this, I was assiate minister for ten years to a pastor did not teach standards, of any kind. His wife came to me one day and ask me, "why did so many leave the church over standards, when her husband did not teach standards?" I had no answer for her at the time until I realized, it was her spirit that was condeming others, concerning standards. See she was very stanch in standards of holiness.

On one hand some might say her spirit was convicting others of a need to accept standards. When in fact it was her spirit that was judging others of standards she held high in her own convictions, and when others studied these things out for themselves and came to a differing conclusion, they would rather leave this church than cause division.

When a saint come to a pastor, and tells him that they have studied certain points in their teaching and found differing opinions. Many pastors take offense and fall back on the "I am the pastor and I am responsible for your soul, or this is the teaching of this church or organization, if you do not to follow this teaching you are in rebelion." Instead of taking the opportunity to reflect on the teaching they have held to and maybe God forbid change the way they teach or what they teach.