Homosexuality Or Legalism--Which Is Worse?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Pelathais, don't do that with me, please it's late over here on the East Coast and all I wanted was an answer from a one line question.
How about you explain the scripture. We don't need to get philosophical.

Sorry, I was just beginning to post when they started to lock up, so I ended with only a wise crack. I'm home now and I'm certain that I've missed you for this evening/morn (or at least I hope you don't keep the hours that I do). As far as being "philosophical..." No promises.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I'm going to tell Him that I read the Bible, you're going to tell Him that you read Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

Ah, but He would know that I was lying because Socrates never wrote anything at all for later generations to read. But, I'm getting "philosophical" already...

As I was catching up on the posts it appears that TrulyBlessed has already answered the question about the Great White Throne judgement. Though there are of course many interpretations, Apostolics have usually held that the judgement of Revelation 20, that you cited is for "sinners" and that "saints" are judged separately at:

1) At Calvary's cross Romans 5:8
2) Our own self-judgment 1 Corinthians 11:31 (if we judge ourselves we shall not be judged...)
3) The Judgement Seat of Christ (Gr. Bema) 2 Corinthians 5:10 (compared to the Great White Throne Judgment - Gr. thronos)

Your's was not a "yes or no" type of question. At this link there is a pic from Larkin's classic treatment of The Book of Revelation. Notice toward the left side of the pic, near the top (along with the Rapture) you have The Judgement Seat of Christ (Gr. βημα) and all the way to the right there is The Great White Throne Judgment (Gr. θρονον λευκον μεγαν ): two different terms for each event.

Two different "judgements." One for those who have received the free gift of salvation and one for those who did not. Those who are judged in the verses you cite are condemned by their own works and thus God is justified in His judgments.

For the believer; works are good, but they don't really appear to impress God (Romans 4:2).

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You get to repent? So if you don't take God up on that generous offer that you get to repent, are you still saved?

For what it's worth, I don't see where the bible ever presents repentance or believing as something we GET to do. It is not optional. Nor do I believe repentance is a work. Does the bible define works as "anything we can do"?

I both agree and disagree with you here - and maybe I'm guilty of quibbling; you decide.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

"For what it's worth, I don't see where the bible ever presents repentance or believing as something we GET to do."

The example of pharoah comes immediately to mind. He didn't get the "chance" to repent because God had hardened his heart. Esau sought a "place of repentence" but it was too late for him. He didn't "get" to repent either. I think that we can say that you (all of us, really) must repent. But when we look at the bigger picture, we have to acknowledge that we get to repent as well. The opportunity for our repentance to be efficatious is known as God's grace.

And I agree with your statement: "repentance is not a 'work.'"

[tv1a]

Very few people would disagree the pharisees represents legalism. Jesus talked many times about their inconsistencies. The woman caught in adultery was the prime example of the incosistency of legalism. Legalism is consistent in lack of applying principle...

It's ironic how you are insistent on using the dictionary to define legalism. Want to try to use the diction on defining apostolic? Webster's New World Dictionary second edition defines apostolic as 1. of the apostles and their teachings, work, etc.. 2. of the pope; so Webster has a catholic leaning towards defining apostolic. (Thrown in at no extra charge)...

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That's not legalism. That's an inconsistancy, or a double standard or hypocrisy. Again what you are doing is not giving a definition. You are giving an example, but even a non-legalist can look for loopholes under the same circumstances. A Legalist by definition is a strict adherence to the letter of the law and salvation by works


Again a non-legalist can do that too. This is not a definition of a legalist. This just tells me what a legalist or any person can do. Heterosexuals can do this. Liberals can do this.


Again you are not giving a definition, you certainly aren't using the dictionary definition of the word. Really what you have been doing is ignoring my points and just listing more examples.


Wrong. Legalism is a word that signifies a strict adherence to the letter of the law AND that one can be justfied by their works. All the other stuff you seem to be adding. Anyone can selectively apply principles and not be a legalist (strict adherence to the letter of the law and salvation by works)

Originally Posted by pelathais

I'm afraid you've left the realm of New Testament theology there and have begun to grasp for straws.

Legalism has always been defined as "trying to earn salvation..." The opposite of trying to earn salvation is to receive salvation as a gift.



I can't even begin to guess how you could have gotten to that point from what I have written. Again, my point is that "legalism" is defined as "earning salvation." I feel that it is wrong to teach people that they must earn something God has freely given.

I have further stated, that preaching "holiness" as has been done within the holiness Tradition - in America this encompasses the teachings of John Wesley, Finney and the modern Holiness movement - teaching this message does not constitute legalism. Holiness preaching exhorts the believer - who is already saved - to go onward.


I disagree strongly, and respectfully. What I have said I have said and preached for years. I would challenge you to take what I have said and ask someone like David Bernard or any one else within the Apostolic movement to evaluate it. I could take the essence of what I said and preach it at a General Conference and get a rousing response.

I am afraid, that for whatever reason, you have chosen to try and view my thoughts in some distorted fashion. I'm afraid that from what you have said, you may be removing yourself from the Apostolic teachings; and perhaps you do so out of some personal feelings toward me. Please, don't allow my insistance that salvation is free prevent you from recognizing that truth for yourself. If need be, eliminate me entirely from your mind and heart and embrace the free gift. I'm not the Giver and not that important to you.

Pelathais,

Thank you for your series of posts and responses. I think I more clearly understand your position and you and I are VERY MUCH on the same page of the book! I think you carefulness in your writing and my redneck roughness combined to create a breakdown in communication and a subsequent misunderstanding of your statements.

If you notice my tag line on my avatar, I am very aware of the power of the free gift of grace!

Now lets move on and get these other legalists straightened out and these liberals lined up and we can have revival!

I appreciate your spirit and attitude in your posts. You have shown Christ in most every circumstance (except when you and I clashed in the beginning).

Lord Bless You!

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by tv1a

I kept my elbows covered.

LOL! How about, "I never grew a mustache or beard?"

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You get to repent? So if you don't take God up on that generous offer that you get to repent, are you still saved?

For what it's worth, I don't see where the bible ever presents repentance or believing as something we GET to do. It is not optional. Nor do I believe repentance is a work. Does the bible define works as "anything we can do"?

I didn't say repentance or baptism is optional. I'm simply presenting the truth that one does not save themselves because even repentance does not happen unless you have heard the gospel and been convicted by the Holy Spirit. i.e. you didn't earn anything by repenting, unless you believe forgiveness is something one earns. Last time I checked the Bible informed me that Jesus paid for my forgiveness once and for all at Calvary. Repentance is a change of mind. Who changed my mind?

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

I didn't say repentance or baptism is optional. I'm simply presenting the truth that one does not save themselves because even repentance does not happen unless you have heard the gospel and been convicted by the Holy Spirit. i.e. you didn't earn anything by repenting, unless you believe forgiveness is something one earns. Last time I checked the Bible informed me that Jesus paid for my forgiveness once and for all at Calvary. Repentance is a change of mind. Who changed my mind?

But what some here call "Legalism" is in reference to what preachers are preaching for their congregation to do after salvation or the born again experience. That is from what I am reading anyway. So they are not preaching that they are saved by "works", but preaching that they continue in salvation by doing good works (i.e. living a holy life). Would this still be identified as legalism?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Sorry, I was just beginning to post when they started to lock up, so I ended with only a wise crack. I'm home now and I'm certain that I've missed you for this evening/morn (or at least I hope you don't keep the hours that I do). As far as being "philosophical..." No promises.

Ah, but He would know that I was lying because Socrates never wrote anything at all for later generations to read. But, I'm getting "philosophical" already...

As I was catching up on the posts it appears that TrulyBlessed has already answered the question about the Great White Throne judgement. Though there are of course many interpretations, Apostolics have usually held that the judgement of Revelation 20, that you cited is for "sinners" and that "saints" are judged separately at:

1) At Calvary's cross Romans 5:8
2) Our own self-judgment 1 Corinthians 11:31 (if we judge ourselves we shall not be judged...)
3) The Judgement Seat of Christ (Gr. Bema) 2 Corinthians 5:10 (compared to the Great White Throne Judgment - Gr. thronos)

Your's was not a "yes or no" type of question. At this link there is a pic from Larkin's classic treatment of The Book of Revelation. Notice toward the left side of the pic, near the top (along with the Rapture) you have The Judgement Seat of Christ (Gr. βημα) and all the way to the right there is The Great White Throne Judgment (Gr. θρονον λευκον μεγαν ): two different terms for each event.

Two different "judgements." One for those who have received the free gift of salvation and one for those who did not. Those who are judged in the verses you cite are condemned by their own works and thus God is justified in His judgments.

For the believer; works are good, but they don't really appear to impress God (Romans 4:2).

No problem, just thought you would be able to presents your thoughts on the "works" that are found in Revelation. I'm far from being a Dispensationlist, and so I don't view eschatology as Clearence Larkin (Larkin was against tongue talkers).

Lets see where Jesus makes an eschatological statement coupled with "works".

Mat 16:24-28

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? FOR the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall REWARD every man ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

In Matthew 16:24-28 Jesus starts out by telling His followers to lead a sacrificial life and that by doing that they will obtain salvation through the cross they carry. Jesus speaks of one denying themselves, and therefore not losing their souls, but gaining eternal life. We then have Jesus going to explain the REWARDS of their denying the world and accepting the way of cross. Therefore at the judgement they are judged by their works, or should I say FRUIT.

Do you believe what Larkin believes yes or no? I'm not having a discussion with Larkin, I'm having a discussion with you. So do you agree with Larkin?

In Jesus Name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

LOL! How about, "I never grew a mustache or beard?"

They would be both white, which would make you look ike Santa Clause.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

I have always understood these verses to refer to a judgment that falls at the end of the Millennial Kingdom and relates to those who died without Christ, and those who were alive coming out of the Millennial Kingdom and who would be judged according to their works during that period. This is after the Second Resurrection.

The First Resurrection has already taken place and those who have been saved prior to the First Resurrection would have had their destiny already determined, or they wouldn't have gone up in the rapture. They have returned with Christ and ruled and reigned with Him on earth for a thousand years.

Do I misunderstand this passage?

In the light of comparing scripture with scripture you do.

Mat 16:24-28

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall REWARD EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com