Homosexuality Or Legalism--Which Is Worse?

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

2Co 5:1-21

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight: ) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we LABOUR, that, whether present or absent, we MAY BE ACCEPTED of him. For we must ALL appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be GOOD OR BAD. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart. For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause. For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
2Co 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should NOT henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are BECOME new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the MINISTRY of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us THE WORD of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you BY US: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

Second letter to Corinthian church chapter five is speaking of the βήμα a word still in use in the Modern Greek. Paul speaks of this event as being future in the context of the chapter of 2nd Corinthians five. The βήμα is where Greek athletes were be awarded the laurel wreath. Remember that all would appear before this throne and it's the same throne, which is white throne of judgement.

I didn't know that the PCI group had Inclusionists in it? That is an interesting thought though?

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

If you have me in mind as an Inclusionist, you are very mistaken. Why is it that when anyone sets forth the Biblical position that a person is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from works, folks like yourself want to place them in some extreme bracket such as inclusionists? It seems to really upset legalists that anyone would want to take away from them boasting rights for having saved themselves by their works. I understand the feeling, since it's these works that build for them the exclusiveness that makes them feel they are saved and everyone else who doesn't do their works are lost. Being part of a uc club is a real source of pride for most uc adherents I know.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

If you have me in mind as an Inclusionist, you are very mistaken. Why is it that when anyone sets forth the Biblical position that a person is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from works, folks like yourself want to place them in some extreme bracket such as inclusionists? It seems to really upset legalists that anyone would want to take away from them boasting rights for having saved themselves by their works. I understand the feeling, since it's these works that build for them the exclusiveness that makes them feel they are saved and everyone else who doesn't do their works are lost. Being part of a uc club is a real source of pride for most uc adherents I know.

Now wait a minute I didn't start this thread, nor do I think I'm an extremist or some religious law keeper. Was it not you who said that you DON'T have to be water baptized, or you DON'T have to believe in One God?

You DON'T have to speak in tongues? What am I leaving out?

In fact is it not true that while you claim that you believe in Acts 2:38 formula, it is not really necessary for salvation?

I have this question can a person lose their salvation?

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

If you have me in mind as an Inclusionist, you are very mistaken. Why is it that when anyone sets forth the Biblical position that a person is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from works, folks like yourself want to place them in some extreme bracket such as inclusionists? It seems to really upset legalists that anyone would want to take away from them boasting rights for having saved themselves by their works. I understand the feeling, since it's these works that build for them the exclusiveness that makes them feel they are saved and everyone else who doesn't do their works are lost. Being part of a uc club is a real source of pride for most uc adherents I know.

He's probably just probing to see how you react. oloroid

Okay, so you're not an inclusionist.

Nevertheless, you've said some pretty harsh things about legalists here. What would be helpful, given the heretofore-unsettled definition of legalism, is for you to point out the legalists you know, and what specific beliefs, actions, or teachings they have adopted that cause them to fall into the category.

Are you up for that?


Joseph has touched on an aspect of the teaching of holiness standards that I think has been missing here. What do YOU think about THIS????

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

He's probably just probing to see how you react. oloroid

Okay, so you're not an inclusionist.

I wanted to see if TB would lean more towards Inclusionism. It would be also interesting of how many PCI Brothers were leaning towards Inclusionism, which I would doubt that would of been the case.

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Nevertheless, you've said some pretty harsh things about legalists here.

Agreed, and that those who hold to outward standards of dress and behavior would be considered to be Rabbinical legalists who think that their performance OUTSIDE of the realm of the Holy Ghost to gain salvation.

TB, spoke about HAVING to repent? I would like to know what he meant by that comment.

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

What would be helpful, given the heretofore-unsettled definition of legalism, is for you to point out the legalists you know, and what specific beliefs, actions, or teachings they have adopted that cause them to fall into the category.

Are you up for that?

That would be splendid, I look forward to seeing that myself.

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Joseph has touched on an aspect of the teaching of holiness standards that I think has been missing here. What do YOU think about THIS????

Await the comments by TB, on these issues.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com