Homosexuality Or Legalism--Which Is Worse?

[tv1a]

Not all pharisees were legalist. The people come immediately to mind. However, even the cavemen of Bible scholars agree leglaism was epidemic amongst the Pharisees.

There are too many similarities between attitudes of legalists and homsexuals to be coincidnece. Just because there are a few differences between the two doesn't mean the similarities aren't there`

You keep saying the Pharisees obeyed all the laws of Moses. That is not true. When the pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery, there was no record of the man being charged with adultery. THe pharisees were selective about which laws of Moses they kept and when they kept them. The spirit of the pharisee is known as legalism today. There is no need to pretend I made up the definition of legalism when it has been universally accepted as a definition for self righteous religious attitudes for years.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You gave examples of pharisees...not all the pharisees were like that. Pharisees also obeyed all the law of moses...do homosexuals obey the law of moses? Do even legalists obey it? Again you are NOT defining the word Legalist nor are you using the actual agreed upon definition. All you are doing is giving examples that even non-legalists can do and then going "Look Look! Homosexuals do this too". That's not a correlation or causation, that's coincidence

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tv1a

There are too many similarities between attitudes of legalists and homsexuals to be coincidnece. Just because there are a few differences between the two doesn't mean the similarities aren't there`

Just because there is a similarity does not make homosexuals legalists.

Im just concerned that you are making a false analogy.

False Analogy
Definition:

• In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

Examples:

1. Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.
2. Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must government. (But the objectives of government and business are completely different, so probably they will have to meet different criteria.)

Proof:

• Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different in a way which will affect whether they both have that property.

References:

• Barker: 192, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 257, Davis: 84
  

http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm


Those traits are NOT exclusive to Legalists...that a Legalist does it first of all does not make it unique to legalism nor does it necessarily figure in the definition. Do non-legalists do it?

You keep saying the Pharisees obeyed all the laws of Moses. That is not true.

No I do not keep saying that. I didn't even say it once.
What I said was, to show how drawing comparisons and similarities is fallicous was that the Pharisees obeyed or followed the law of Moses. I was not arguing they actually KEPT them all, and then pointed out Homosexuals don't obey the law of Moses. So some legalists believe the Law of Moses should be obeyed, but do they all? No. But you could argue using your reasoning that "Legalists believe in keeping the law of Moses"...it's just not true

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

First of all, I'm not a Calvinist, so what a Calvinist would think of my view of salvation is of no concern to me at all.

Wait a moment Brother Curtis; please try to understand what I am trying to gather from you. If you believe that their is zero participation on the part of a soul to receive salvation and they have not part in their own salvation then I would say you have some John Calvin leanings. Let me put it this way, if you were talking with a Calvinist and told him your views of God and Grace and the sinner coming to God, I do believe the Calvinist would agree with you. When you then tell the Calvinist that you believed that a soul has the power to lose the free gift of salvation (something you believe he never earned in the first place). The Calvinist would scratch his head and ask you how can you lose what you cannot ever obtain through works in the first place?

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

Secondly, it's interesting to me that you totally ignore the weight of Scripture that clearly states no one is saved by works, not even righteous works. Apparently you don't believe the Word of God on this point.

No, I believe the whole book, but you're taking the scripture out of context.
You quote Eph 2:8 like a Baptist or Trinitarian quotes Matt 28:19, and fail to present the whole thought of the chapter. Paul explains what he is talking about in Eph 2:10. We are created or made mature unto good works. One could also bring the same accusation against you on why do you deny the Word of God and the many scriptures explaining good works.

What you are not seeing as you look through Denominational filters is that the works that will not get you saved are the works that are not Holy Ghost lead. Remember Paul is defending his churches against Judaizers who are trying to bring unknowing Gentiles into the Jewish Law system and trying to have the newly converted Gentiles circumcised and therefore making the Gentiles physical Jews to complete salvation. Paul comes against this strongly because these Laws were never meant to be applied to Gentiles.

We are to be lead by the Holy Ghost and good works are the product of a life in Christ.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

Thirdly, I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree on your deduction that if wicked works will result in someone being lost, then the opposite is true. As I have pointed out, Scripture doesn't support this conclusion. Wouldn't that be like saying the opposite of Jesus Christ is Satan?

Jesus the opposite of Satan? Maybe that's what the Mormon's believe, but that is not at all what I'm presenting here. Let me explain, if you have agreed that a person can lose his salvation by his own actions then by agreeing to that you are agreeing that he can by NOT doing those things preserve his salvation. Remember your argument is that you can not do anything to earn salvation and then when asked if you can lose that which was given you for free you then replied that you could through wicked works.

Therefore if you can lose the Holy Ghost through wicked works, then by doing certain things you can then prevent losing what you were given.

TB, I have Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and Bible College right up the road from where we hold our Bible study classes. I must tell you this the students of Dr. D. James Kennedy would be on you like white on rice if they heard your teaching on Grace and the Loss of the Soul.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

I will simply restate what Titus 3:5 teaches us, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"

You are quoting that scripture out from beyond the context of its chapter and what is going on at the time it was written. The works of righteousness are those of the Judaic Law System, keeping all Jewish Festivals, animal sacrifice, visiting the temple in Jerusalem and keeping the traditions of the elders. For Gentiles to have any part of these laws would have been wrong.

In Acts chapter 15 it was made clear to the Jerusalem council that the Gentiles were to abstain from paganism (incidentally abstaining from something wrong would be a work) and not to keep the Law of Moses or have their children or themselves circumcised.

Again you quote the verse Titus 3:5 and by only quoting that one verse it would seem that your doctrine is valid, but if you would quote Titus 3:8 you would have the rest of the picture. Paul is telling Titus to put the people in mind that they do good works (Titus 3:1) and then Paul reminds Titus that they didn't deserve the gift of God and that Christ didn't come because of their good works (prior to their conversion) Titus 3:3-7. Paul then tells Titus that Titus 3:3-7 was the faithful saying or good news and that Titus was to keep affirming those things and that those who were now converted were to maintain GOOD WORKS.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

So, are you saying that you believe we ARE saved by our works, even though the Bible refutes this? It seems to me at times that you are agreeing with me that works are the response of the believer to the work of the Spirit in our lives, yet in the next breath you are saying that it's works that save us. Do you disagree with me when I say there is a distinction between "acts of obedience" and "works"?

Here we are again, and now we must look at what has been said. You say that you can not earn salvation correct? You then said but you can earn your damnation? I said that if you believe the one the other must also be true. Now, I say that the Holy Ghost calls ALL men to repentance and the Holy Ghost is pricking the hearts of men when they hear the Gospel, and are reminded of Christ's love. Those individuals (who make a decision to yield) who answer the call come to repentance (as John the Baptist commented, Mat 3:8) those who repent must bring forth the fruit of that repentance, which is obedience to the Gospel. The scripture then says God gives the Holy Ghost to they who OBEY, (Act 5:32). Those who were pricked in their hearts gladly were baptized in Jesus name for the remission of sins. They also continued in the apostle's doctrine.

While the Calvinists claim that we have no intervention in the salvation process and also cannot lose salvation. I see the Bible telling us about a process that brings us from birth to maturity and the Holy Ghost is well able to keep us as any good parent can keep their child, but a child has their own free will and can make their own decision to kick against the pricks.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

I find it amazing that while PAJCers place so much emphasis on the need for someone to speak with other tongues, they minimize the role of the Spirit in favor of man's role in the salvation process.

That's not true, I have never heard any preacher say that you can MAKE someone get the Holy Ghost. Brother Curtis there is no way any preacher can make someone get the Holy Ghost and speak in tongues. I think it's the Charismatics who corner that market. I know that when I received the Holy Ghost speaking in tongues that my life changed.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

It's true that we have a free will, but once we have been born again by the Spirit, the Spirit is to be in control of our lives, not our will.

That's wonderful, but we have to decrease and that takes WORK.

In JESUS Name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[tv1a]

I did not say homosexuals are legalists. I said there are similarities between the two spirits. So you have spent the last three days arguing something no one I know of was saying.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Just because there is a similarity does not make homosexuals legalists.

Im just concerned that you are making a false analogy.

False Analogy
Definition:

• In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

Examples:

1. Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.
2. Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must government. (But the objectives of government and business are completely different, so probably they will have to meet different criteria.)

Proof:

• Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different in a way which will affect whether they both have that property.

References:

• Barker: 192, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 257, Davis: 84

http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm


Those traits are NOT exclusive to Legalists...that a Legalist does it first of all does not make it unique to legalism nor does it necessarily figure in the definition. Do non-legalists do it?

No I do not keep saying that. I didn't even say it once.
What I said was, to show how drawing comparisons and similarities is fallicous was that the Pharisees obeyed or followed the law of Moses. I was not arguing they actually KEPT them all, and then pointed out Homosexuals don't obey the law of Moses. So some legalists believe the Law of Moses should be obeyed, but do they all? No. But you could argue using your reasoning that "Legalists believe in keeping the law of Moses"...it's just not true

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tv1a

I did not say homosexuals are legalists. I said there are similarities between the two spirits. So you have spent the last three days arguing something no one I know of was saying.

But what is the point in saying there is a similarity? jack Cheese is soft...so are marshmellows....what does that show?

[tv1a]

The similarities show the same spirit which drives the legalist drives the homosexual. Should put a sting in your heart that legalism isn't all that and a box of tissues.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

But what is the point in saying there is a similarity? jack Cheese is soft...so are marshmellows....what does that show?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tv1a

The similarities show the same spirit which drives the legalist drives the homosexual. Should put a sting in your heart that legalism isn't all that and a box of tissues.

Legalism is a false religious system and I don't need a fallacious argument to know that. My previous post goes to the heard of this assertion of yours. A single similarity does not mean "same spirit" anymore than a slice of cheese has the same spirit as a marshmallow :-)