Homosexuality Or Legalism--Which Is Worse?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by philjones

Pelathais,

Originally Posted by philjones

Why was the per se necessary in your statement I bolded? Why not just make the statement? Inclusion of the "by itself" would indicate that the standards or holiness are condemned just not by themselves.

You're right. By adding that I made the statement more difficult to understand. I think I was trying to add a little wiggle room for "those who preach standards as a means for earning salvation." My point was simply, preaching standards and holiness is not legalism. The point of holiness, as I see it, is that once saved, the believer goes on to exemplify Jesus Christ. Holiness is what we do because we are saved- not what we do to get saved.

Originally Posted by philjones

If I am reading your arguments correctly, your argument is not against traditional standards but against the substitution of these standards or holiness guidelines for a personal relationship with God. I do not think you will get any argument from any conservative on this board concerning this viewpoint.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by philjones

Unfortunately, most (you may not be included) who run around waving the "dangers of legalism" banner DO NOT view legalism nor judge fairly those they deem legalistic. In the majority of the flag wavers eyes anyone who maintains standards of separation MUST be legalistic. This is what causes the defensiveness you mentioned in your last sentence. It is only natural to throw your hands up to protect yourself when the normal experience is a pummeling of condemnation for way you have chosen to worship the God of your salvation.

The debate gets tangled by Apostolics and "Evangelicals." Some Evangelicals say things like, "requiring baptism is legalism..." When you hit that argument you then have to go back and explain to the Evangelical what legalism is and why obedience to the Gospel is not legalism.

Then you run into an Apostolic who deems sleeve and hem lengths to be salvific (and I'm talking calves and elbows here- not nudity). To that Apostolic I feel we must explain that these types of things are cultural and not salvific.

Originally Posted by philjones

Surprisingly, you don't seem to find the bleeding heart liberals defensive when they object to their portrayal as believing there are no absolutes. To say it like a real conservative, they don't believe fat meat is greasy!

So, where do we go from here? Can the loose living liberals ever accept that the conservatives are not legalists and can the legalistic conservatives ever accept that the liberals are simply allowing the Holy Ghost to guide them in their personal lifestyle? I am afraid that this is a breach that is seldom ever bridged.

When you use the term "loose living" I would generally think of morals - infidelity in marriage, substance abuse, etc. Are you being ironic and just talking about guys that wear baggy "shorts" to Disney World? You see, I don't think that the cultural stuff that a lot of people deem as "standards" are real standards for salvation. They may be important stands that people have taken to make themselves separate within a local area or time- but when they are no loner relevant why can't the "standards" be laid aside and people move on to what is relevant for their circumstances?

I think the whole "fat meat is greasy" thing clouds the issue. Just to pick on the "shorts" thing a while: Do you think a man who wears the modern style of cargo shorts (or something similar- shorts to the knee) has abandoned "absolutes?" Has he "let down" his standards so far that he "might as well be naked?" To be honest, I feel that anyone who takes that harsh of a stand has let go of the meaning of "absolutes."

When an individual takes extra-Biblical rules and makes them salvific, I would have to say they are not being "conservative" but rather, they are being "radical." They are introducing things to the Apostolic doctrine that the Apostles themselves never preached. This unneccessarily divides the Body of Christ and adds confusing traditions - like the prohibitions on open toed shoes and women wearing red.

And as far as "allowing the Holy Ghost to guide them..." This, for me is a rather problematic statement. Is the Holy Ghost telling some people to wear short sleeves and others to wear long? Is the Holy Spirit telling some people to shave their beards and others (like the Apostles) to wear beards? Is God the author of this confusion? Or is this confusion something that we are needlessly doing to ourselves?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by philjones

Pelathais,

You seem to like setting your own rules for how this discussion must occur. I find that your spectrum and graph are the ones that fit your position the best while Prax' represents a more honest view of the situation. Your view is the one that fits your argument the best.

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.

Originally Posted by philjones

You are obviously intelligent and well educated; educated by what I view as apostate Christianity as well as traditional Apostolic tradition. You seem to have chosen to embrace the apostate's positions in an effort attack the traditions which birthed you. I hope that I am wrong.

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.

Originally Posted by philjones

I think in this post you have revealed the reason for the per se. You DO actually feel that anyone who holds to a particular traditional Pentecostal standard is and MUST be a legalist! You may say otherwise but your words oppose you.

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.

[RandyWayne]

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

And it is far more then trying to earn salvation. The thing about legalism that made Jesus toss His tables was the pride and control inherent in those engaged in it. Maybe this is something reserved for the leaders of those engaged in legalism versus those who practice it as church members, but the fact remains that a legalist will pray "Thank you for not making me like <the guy who doesn't follow the fill-in-the-blank rule>." The legalist will also have the undermining motive of using legalism as a means of control. How better to keep a flock under control then to have a series of specific issues to preach against? And THEN to preach fear into their hearts that if they disobey the leader, the unspeakable will happen.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You're just jealous because your nick does not start with P

Yeah really! Who are those other guys?

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Like BELIEVING and REPENTANCE and BEING FAITHFUL??????

Didn't take long to get YOUR attention! I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who has no concept of the grace of God or what being born again is, what it means to be saved by grace through faith. An understanding of grace is extremely difficult for someone who has been indoctrinated in legalism. Unless there is a revelation of grace it is near impossible because it is do diametrically opposite of legalism.

I grew up in legalism. From what I have observed, probably more legalistic than you. I know what it is to live in constant fear of being lost based upon my own performance (or more accurately, lack of performance). I also know what it means to receive a revelation of grace and feel saved and secure in my relationship with the Lord for the first time in my life.

The simple response to your post is that no one believes, or repents, or lives a faithful life except the Spirit of God makes it possible. It does not begin with man saving himself and no one will endure unto the end and be saved by his own works. JESUS ALONE SAVES! Sorry, but TB cannot save TB! However, I can receive this free gift of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

Didn't take long to get YOUR attention! I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who has no concept of the grace of God or what being born again is, what it means to be saved by grace through faith. An understanding of grace is extremely difficult for someone who has been indoctrinated in legalism. Unless there is a revelation of grace it is near impossible because it is do diametrically opposite of legalism.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

I grew up in legalism. From what I have observed, probably more legalistic than you. I know what it is to live in constant fear of being lost based upon my own performance (or more accurately, lack of performance). I also know what it means to receive a revelation of grace and feel saved and secure in my relationship with the Lord for the first time in my life.

The simple response to your post is that no one believes, or repents, or lives a faithful life except the Spirit of God makes it possible. It does not begin with man saving himself and no one will endure unto the end and be saved by his own works. JESUS ALONE SAVES! Sorry, but TB cannot save TB! However, I can receive this free gift of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

You know, when I first joined a UPC church, the New Converts class - using the precursor to what became In My Father's House - had me memorize the following passage: Ephesians 2:8-10

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

That is the message that I preached for 20 years in the UPC before being told to go somewhere else. It is the message that I still believe today. I do find that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about this message within Apostolic circles. But this is what I have observed:

When I was kicked out - the "conservative holiness" guys who were against me were angry that I would not change a speaking schedule to accommodate one of their buddies who was in town with his secretary. Things went downhill for them from there.

One of the ministers who opposed me would later abandon his wife and children and run off with a biker chick. The senior pastor of that church (then running around 200) now pastors only his wife and daughter. The adulterous preacher is married to his secretary after having abandoned his wife and family.

The saints who left that church are scattered around town- those in Apostolic churches regularly hear messages like the ones I used to preach and are pastored by holiness minded men who preach, teach and live Ephesians 2.

My observations: "Legalism" does not promote holiness. Legalism does not stand the test of time. Legalism destroys homes, families and churches. Legalism is not the preferred message within Apostolic churches.

And finally: the free gift is always there. It was there when my brethren attacked me and threw me out. It was there when the biker chick showed up. It was there when the church fell apart. It was there when the families and marriages and ministries were lost. Those who have received the free gift stand faithful today. The legalists? They're legalists and miserable and alone today.

[tv1a]

Legalism is the spiritual equivelent of situational ethics. Legalists consistently look for loopholes when an application of principle rules out participating in an activity near and dear to them. Legalists look down on others for not holding the similar opinions. A legalist denies conflicting principles and makes up new principles to justify an position. Legalists live off another generation's principles as long as it falls within the realm of their agenda.

People who take offense to the term legalism automatically assume it is an attack on standards. That is not the case. Legalism is a definition coined by others to describe rules based salvation combined with selectively applying principles when one wants a certain rule to change.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It sounds as though you are saying "if a legalist does it, it must be unique to a legalist and defines someone else as a legalist"...

Are Homosexuals legalists then? It really does sound like you are being subjective and equivocating. Do homosexuals adhere to the letter of the law?

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

2.Theology. a.the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works. b.the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.

Forgive my bluntness, but it really sounds like you are just adding to the term Legalism and then drawing a biased comparison. Even a non-legalist can by hypocritical or hold to a double standard or just be inconsistant...in this case it's inconsistant to say No to TV and Yes to Internet. Anyone can do that and NOT be a legalist according to the dictionary definition of legalism.

What you have done was not really even define. You gave an example and then in essence said "Legalists do this, well so do homosexuals", but you have not proven that this thing of TV and Internet is something ONLY a legalist would do or that it's a trademark of a legalist. Can heterosexuals do that too?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by tv1a

I may add unfortunately some of them are now homosexual.

None to my knowledge.

I was sharing a personal experience and not trying to unneccessarily generalize. These events really happened just as I described them. They are the sad artifacts of false religion - except those who escaped; they found victory and peace in Jesus Christ.

[tv1a]

I was referring to the last line in a general way so I could make a personal observation. I will voluntarily delete the post to avoid any misconception of my post... I apologize in advance...

Originally Posted by pelathais

None to my knowledge.

I was sharing a personal experience and not trying to unneccessarily generalize. These events really happened just as I described them. They are the sad artifacts of false religion - except those who escaped; they found victory and peace in Jesus Christ.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by tv1a

I was referring to the last line in a general way so I could make a personal observation. I will voluntarily delete the post to avoid any misconception of my post... I apologize in advance...

Thank you. Do as you feel best. Again, none of the individuals involved in the account that I gave above were ever involved in anything other than what I described. Just wanting to be clear.