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

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I will investigate how you can get a copy of the book, Neck.

I'd like to read it also. I agree with everything he wrote (except for his little rant on the puritans.)

[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.

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.

[tv1a]

It was a painful procedure...lol

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Now THAT is funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by mfblume

His reasoning is spot-on. It has been hillarious to hear people say they must hold to the ancient landmarks and refer to 50 years ago, rather than 3,500.

I think that "holding the ancient landmarks" is a timeless principle. To suggest that this scripture speaks specifically of the 3500 year old landmarks, and not the recent "landmarks" is itself a form of "legalism". One is defining words in a litiguous manner to conclude whatever is appropiate for them. This principle appeals to the the "ancient landarks" of recent history in the same way it appeals to the "ancient landmarks" of antiquity.

[tv1a]

If your assessment is valid, than there should be no problem with a new set of landmarks. The landmarks established 50 years ago are not in the same place as the landmarks established in the Bible.

Landmarks are principles not rules. The guidelines established 50 years ago are rules.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I think that "holding the ancient landmarks" is a timeless principle. To suggest that this scripture speaks specifically of the 3500 year old landmarks, and not the recent "landmarks" is itself a form of "legalism". One is defining words in a litiguous manner to conclude whatever is appropiate for them. This principle appeals to the the "ancient landarks" of recent history in the same way it appeals to the "ancient landmarks" of antiquity.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by DividedThigh

phil, no they dont, my point, which you missed is that dressing modestly and morally dont make us holy, they just illustrate our obedience, to god there is a big diff, our effort to be odedient are simply that our best efforts , that does not equal holiness, that is what i believe, dt

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.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by tv1a

If your assessment is valid, than there should be no problem with a new set of landmarks. The landmarks established 50 years ago are not in the same place as the landmarks established in the Bible.

Landmarks are principles not rules. The guidelines established 50 years ago are rules.

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.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I think that "holding the ancient landmarks" is a timeless principle. To suggest that this scripture speaks specifically of the 3500 year old landmarks, and not the recent "landmarks" is itself a form of "legalism". One is defining words in a litiguous manner to conclude whatever is appropiate for them. This principle appeals to the the "ancient landarks" of recent history in the same way it appeals to the "ancient landmarks" of antiquity.

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

[berkeley]

Sounds like an interesting read.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by tv1a

How did we find out about if he didn't write about it?

Paul didn't have to disfellowship because he realized legalism is a spirit and confronted the spirit. It just so happened the guy with the "keys" happend to be influenced by that spirit. Once Peter realized the direction he was heading, he made a change that even effected his writing. Peter's epistles were a far cry for the legalistic venom he espoused in the book of Acts.

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I am truly rolling on the floor laughing at this!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by tv1a

Are Galatians 2 and Acts 15 missing in your Bible?

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