Quote:
Originally Posted by philjones
Pelathais,
|
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Threaded Mode
