Flippantly Flaunted Spiritual Liberties

[CC1]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I disagree. They have taken their beliefs and made a rigid Law that if I do not follow their Law, I will be lost. This is legalism & judgmentalism together.

That dog don't hunt because by the nature of their beliefs they are not legalists.

That is an interesting stretch you are doing to make libs legalists. To say that because they wish others understood the pitfalls of legalism and would come out of it this makes them "rigid" in their beliefs and therefore legalists is not a rational arguement.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Elder Dan Mena would look at Bro Epley as more liberal, as they teach against internet.


I have a friend in Taiwan that preaches against internet at his church. He told me he teaches that they should only get online if they must. Of course, Taiwan has a major issue online with open porn.

And America doesn't? Lol.......porn exists anywhere you want to look for it, once again, it's an issue of the heart.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I disagree. They have taken their beliefs and made a rigid Law that if I do not follow their Law, I will be lost. This is legalism & judgmentalism together.

Actually it's just the opposite. They are saying by having all the rules we are legalists. They are saying that by having a strict adherence to a law we are legalists

Legalism
strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, esp. to the letter rather than the spirit.

Rather it's just the opposite. They don't have a law...they have given UP the laws or rules.

They don't say "You have to do this and you have to do that and any deviation means you are lost"...

Legalism is not flaunting your liberty to others. It might be arrogant or rude, but not legalism. Saying someone else is lost because they have these rules or they don't have someone elses liberty might be judgementalism....but it's not legalism

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Actually it's just the opposite. They are saying by having all the rules we are legalists. They are saying that by having a strict adherence to a law we are legalists

Legalism
strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, esp. to the letter rather than the spirit.

Rather it's just the opposite. They don't have a law...they have given UP the laws or rules.

They don't say "You have to do this and you have to do that and any deviation means you are lost"...

Legalism is not flaunting your liberty to others. It might be arrogant or rude, but not legalism. Saying someone else is lost because they have these rules or they don't have someone elses liberty might be judgementalism....but it's not legalism

That's the way I understand it.

[CC1]

I can only assume that St.Matt is tired or has not thought this through as he usually is astute in analysis of conversations on here.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by CC1

I can only assume that St.Matt is tired or has not thought this through as he usually is astute in analysis of conversations on here.

Or maybe he means libs have trouble with cons "adding to the Word", but even then, I don't know anyone that believe that will send someone to hell.

[rkentsmith]

Originally Posted by AtlantaBishop

Some of you think that because someone leaves the UPC or the ULTRA-CON "Apostolic" movement that one never preaches or teaches "Holiness" any more.
I continue to preach and teach my church Holiness, Godliness, Righteousness and separation from the world.
I have platform standards and standards for the Ministers and Pastors that serve with us, our teachers, ushers, musicians and leadership. Everyone is welcome at our church no matter what they look like or where they come from. The standards and things we require are NOT the same as where we have been - but then some of the places I have been looked the part but did not live the part!
We baptize in the Name of Jesus Christ. We teach the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is not optional like a spare tire - but is necessary to a Christian today.

I do not want to go back to the UPC. RKS started this mean spirited thread and has been called on it. He is wrong and his information is far from the truth. We simply live our lives and when UPC people see us - they think we don't measure up to the Wesleyan idea of Holiness so we FLAUNT our liberty as to say - we can live anyway we want to. Hey Doc - WE STILL BELIEVE THE BIBLE - just not Suzanna Wesley's definition of Holiness - where most of that "outward holiness" hair, pants, jewelry and make up doctrine comes from. The Apostolics did not come up with all the rules, standards, regulations - those were rules from the 1800's!

Atlanta bishop.....mean spirited.....this is a truly liberal chant from you...go ahead and call me homophobic.....

You are free to do what you want...but have proven that you go rabid just like the ultracons when someone challenges your spiritual condition.....

Apostolics did not come with a list of rules nor do they adhere to rules today.....

A true apostolic will live a very moderate life without the help of the rule list.....

But the apostolic will have rules in his life because he walks in the spirit....

And a true apostolic will not become rabid or accuse others of mean spiritism.......

You my friend have apparently backslid and become rabid when anyone of conviction passes by.....

[Brother Price]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I disagree. They have taken their beliefs and made a rigid Law that if I do not follow their Law, I will be lost. This is legalism & judgmentalism together.

Exactly. Legalism comes into play when someone comes around who holds a righteous standards, and they denounce such a someone as lost because they hold to holiness. You can almost see that self-same spirit with many people who flaunt how they left the UPC, and are proud of it. They claim to be 'modern' believers, and say that standards are bondage, some even calling them sin.

Some say that when someone holds to standards, they are adding to the Word. Horse hockey! 95% of all standards I have ever heard preached had scripture to back up the belief. I have heard some extra biblical standards, yes. Those I usually ignore. But, those which I hold to, I have scripture to add with them. So, the notion of standards as being extra biblical is nonsense and the attempts of certain individuals to go back into the world again.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

Exactly. Legalism comes into play when someone comes around who holds a righteous standards, and they denounce such a someone as lost because they hold to holiness. You can almost see that self-same spirit with many people who flaunt how they left the UPC, and are proud of it. They claim to be 'modern' believers, and say that standards are bondage, some even calling them sin.

Would it also be "legalism" when someone comes around who holds to standards and denounces all others as lost, who don't hold those same standards?

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Would it also be "legalism" when someone comes around who holds to standards and denounce all others as lost, who don't hold those same standards?

No maam...that would judgmentalism....maybe even blashphemy