***UPCI's Anthony Langston's New Book: Holier Than God ***

[tv1a]

It was James who was the spokesman.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

It's funny, because in Acts it seems Peter was arguing for grace.... not legalism!

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I would agree with the writer of the article that the ancient landmarks are the ones laid down by the apostles.

I can't buy that suggestion Mizpeh. The scripture is in Proverbs which was written long before the apostles were on the scene. This is a principle that transcends the OT and NT... Paul spoke to Timothy as his "Son in the Gospel", therefore Timothy's spiritual Father was Paul (one generation away). We could also apply the same precedence, in that our spiritual "fathers" are the ones who begat us in the gospel, one generation away. The principle "move not the landmarks of our fathers" can speak of our immediate predecessors in the SAME WAY it speaks of those landmarks from 3500 years ago, or 2000 years ago, or 20 years ago....

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by tv1a

It was James who was the spokesman.

Acts 15:7-11
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

These were PETER'S words. Peter was arguing for grace here. There was NO rampant "legalism" from Peter as you suggested. Also when Paul withstood Peter, it wasn't for his "legalism", it was for his hypocrisy-for acting one way when the Jews were not around, and then acting another way when the Jews showed up on the scene.

[tv1a]

There is no biblical precedence to suggests man made rules are infalliable, let alone establishing landmarks outside the Bible. The pharisees started out the same way. They interpreted principles a certain way.

Using your explaination of removing the ancient landmark, legalists are just as guilty of disobeying scripture by moving the landmarks to encompass a smaller space.
If the Bible says not to remove the ancient landmarks, it means not to move them in either direction.
It is difficult to see what the landmarks are with all the rules and regulations heaped on top of them.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I agree to an extent. But consider that when defining landmarks for today, it is just as important to "consider" the landmarks of recent years, as well as the lanmarks of 3500 years ago. It is only prudent for us to consider and take into account the reasoning behind our immediate predecessor's conclusions and integrate them in a way that is relevant and biblical today! Simply casting off the "landmarks" of our immediate predecessors is, IMO, unwise.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

This is the problem I have with across the board "holiness standards" as well. There is no allowance for Holy Ghost conviction nor for each believer in their walk with God to have personal convictions. The law of standards is made across the board for all when the Bible simply says MODESTY.

Do you not agree that someone has to interpret and communicate what "modesty" means in a general sense? If left up to individuals, they may come up with an infinite number of definitions of "modesty". We really should at least strive for a close to consensus definition of modesty...

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by tv1a

There is no biblical precedence to suggests man made rules are infalliable, let alone establishing landmarks outside the Bible. The pharisees started out the same way. They interpreted principles a certain way.

Using your explaination of removing the ancient landmark, legalists are just as guilty of disobeying scripture by moving the landmarks to encompass a smaller space.
If the Bible says not to remove the ancient landmarks, it means not to move them in either direction.
It is difficult to see what the landmarks are with all the rules and regulations heaped on top of them.

I agree... no problem here. But my simple little contention is not to disregard as "rules" the convictions of those who went immediately before us. They arrived at their conclusions through a process of prayer and personal consecration. And we must do the same as well. And yes, we are facing a different age, generation, and issues that those who went before us didn't face. And we are going to have to set some landmarks down ourselves. But in doing that, it is only appropriate to be studious as to WHY and HOW our immediate predecessors came to their conclusions. To simply disregard their stance and conclusions as "antiquated" etc. is unwise, and really is fundamentally foolish.

Heb 13:7
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

[tv1a]

According to some commentaries Paul was speaking about the events described in Acts 15 in his writings to the Galations. It is obvious Peter had a change of heart from legalism to grace. The timeline may be debated but the facts are Peter in favor of legalism.

Acts 15:13-29
13 When they had finished, James stood and said, "Brothers, listen to me.
14 Peter has told you about the time God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people for himself.
15 And this conversion of Gentiles agrees with what the prophets predicted. For instance, it is written:
16'Afterward I will return, and I will restore the fallen kingdom of David. From the ruins I will rebuild it, and I will restore it,
17 so that the rest of humanity might find the Lord, including the Gentiles-- all those I have called to be mine. This is what the Lord says,
18 he who made these things known long ago.'
19 And so my judgment is that we should stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God,
20 except that we should write to them and tell them to abstain from eating meat sacrificed to idols, from sexual immorality, and from consuming blood or eating the meat of strangled animals.
21 For these laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations."
The Letter for Gentile Believers
22 Then the apostles and elders and the whole church in Jerusalem chose delegates, and they sent them to Antioch of Syria with Paul and Barnabas to report on this decision. The men chosen were two of the church leaders--Judas (also called Barsabbas) and Silas.
23 This is the letter they took along with them: "This letter is from the apostles and elders, your brothers in Jerusalem. It is written to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Greetings!
24 "We understand that some men from here have troubled you and upset you with their teaching, but they had no such instructions from us.
25 So it seemed good to us, having unanimously agreed on our decision, to send you these official representatives, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 So we are sending Judas and Silas to tell you what we have decided concerning your question.
28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these requirements:
29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or eating the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell."
NLT

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Acts 15:7-11
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

These were PETER'S words. Peter was arguing for grace here. There was NO rampant "legalism" from Peter as you suggested. Also when Paul withstood Peter, it wasn't for his "legalism", it was for his hypocrisy-for acting one way when the Jews were not around, and then acting another way when the Jews showed up on the scene.

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Dressing modestly doesn't make you "holy", dressing modestly makes you "modest". You cannot be modest without dressing modestly. But your statement seems to indicate that it is possible to be modest without dressing modestly. I agree with you assessment that modestly does not make you holy, but that is not what you said originally.

i think the fact that i stated they illustrate our obedience covers that bob, i wrote what i believe from many years of being in the church and observing people trying to make holiness works, and it aint working, thanks bro, dt

[tv1a]

This is so evident with the internet television debate. I believe those who went before us established rules based on principles. I believe with my whole heart those men would be against internet as strong as they were against television. Just like in Jesus' day, we have a group of people who are unable to get a conviction on their own and rely on a 50 year old cultural conviction.

There are many who spent hours in prayer and concescration who come up with a different conclusion and they are ostracized.

I wonder how many rules were passed because of prayer and concencration and how many were passed just to keep the ''unity''.

If unity was more important to the merger than interpretaion of Acts 2:38, could it be that unity was still on minds of many when a lot of these cultural rules were decided?

Dress codes in those days were based on their culture. There were not major differences in dress codes when the clothelins rule was instituted. A majority of the world dressed the part anyway. It became a problem when fashioned changed and although a general principle of modesty was still prevelent, the church did not change because they were following the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I agree... no problem here. But my simple little contention is not to disregard as "rules" the convictions of those who went immediately before us. They arrived at their conclusions through a process of prayer and personal consecration. And we must do the same as well. And yes, we are facing a different age, generation, and issues that those who went before us didn't face. And we are going to have to set some landmarks down ourselves. But in doing that, it is only appropriate to be studious as to WHY and HOW our immediate predecessors came to their conclusions. To simply disregard their stance and conclusions as "antiquated" etc. is unwise, and really is fundamentally foolish.

Heb 13:7
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Sorry,

but you have posted with such venom and hatred for so long that I take nothing you post seriously. You have castrated your effectiveness to minister anything into my life. I just hope that your attitude doesn't bleed over into the lives of the church around you.

Originally Posted by tv1a

Make up your mind. Is the forum's policy is to discuss issues and leave personalities out of it? I have not labeled or called out an individual with a legalistic spirit. That spirit has been identified based on scripture. That spirit was successfully squashed by the Apostle Paul. Every few hundred years it rears it ugly head. Now that spirit has rested with a group of people that has the potential to shake the nations.

The Bible establishes the spirit of legalism is not of God. The Bible says anything that is not of God is sin.

I have never made this personal or directed towards an individual. I've made comments based on observations AND scriptures. There are more scriptures that deal with legalism than deal with trinitarians going to hell.

My attitude works really well. It's not phoney or pretentious. I'm real person serving a real God. I'm not interested in ministering to people who think they are all that and a box of chocolates. I'm not interested in casting out devils from so-called saints just to have them pick them back up on the way out the door. The scripture is explicit in casting pearls before swine. I hope I never get to the place I tolerate oppressive spirits in the name of harmony and unity.

for St. Matt