Homosexuality Or Legalism--Which Is Worse?

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by tv1a

The easiest example for the legalist is television/internet debate. The principle against televisions are not applied to internet. A legalist has a sliding scale for principle.

TV vs. Internet = Push vs. Pull media

Legalism and homosexuality are built on shakey foundations.

One is the pursuit of salvation by adding the law to free grace. The other is the pursuit of flesh and self. I'm not sure this comparison is accurate.

Legalists and homosexuals live by their own set of rules and expect everyone else to do the same.

I agree.

Homosexuals call it gay bashing when someone disagrees with their philosophy. Legalists cry persecution if someone disagrees with their philosophy.

I thought that if someone disagrees with a legalist's philosopy, they would cry.

As indicated earlier leglaists and homosexual are selective with applying principle. Both are abominations to God.

Where is the scripture that applies the word "abomination" to Christians adding the law of Moses to their faith?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by keith4him

I disagree, if you take Paul's letter to the Galatian church legalism was cursed and was considered almost bewitching. I think he reserved his strongest rebukes and condemnation for Legalism.

But either way the practicing homosexual or legalist will both go to hell.

Paul was a legalist Jew who was teaching Gentiles not to be taken in by legalist Judaizers.

The Legalist Judaizers were compelling the converted Gentiles to be circumcised in order for the Gentiles to become physical Jews.

The Judaizers wanted Christianity to become a religion like to their Jewish religion. It was more about the outward and making one physically part of a race.

To say that those who preach standards, and abstaining from television to be legalists and using the letter to the Galatians to prove that standard preachers are legalists is a far stretch indeed.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I know that people accustomed to the Apostolic tradition might struggle with this at first, sometimes. This is because we have become used to hearing our critics say that "baptism" is "legalism," or that "telling people that they have to receive the Holy Ghost is legalism." But when we then turn to the NT and find our critics are wrong; we come away from that discussion with the wrong idea about "legalism."

Do not let such critics define your faith. If you are obedient to the teachings of the NT then you are not a "legalist." If someone tries to add to the NT or tried to earn salvation through the works of the Old Testament Law, then that's a legalist.

We will have debates about how to apply the NT teachings among ourselves until the cows come home. Interestingly enough, that also was the pattern of the NT Church!

Define works?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Fort Luaderdale has nothing on the area I live in.

Have you ever been to Fort Lauderdale?

Originally Posted by tv1a

That's coming from a person I know who used to live in that area of Florida.

Here say? You are going to form an opinion from what some individual mentioned about the "AREA"? What "AREA" exactly did this person live?

How long ago did he or she live in the "area" when they were 6 back in 1964?

Tell you what tv1a come back when you have properly followed up your bad lead. Wilton Manors Florida had the first ALL HOMOSEXUAL city council in the United States. Wilton Manors is a city in the "area" of Fort Ladee Daa.

By the way where do you live?

Originally Posted by tv1a

Legalism has been defined, dig through the posts and find it.

I saw the definition that Prax gave you and I think you had given him a blurb of what you felt legalism to be, if you don't want to take a millisecond to type your thought again no problem. I'm getting use to this type of behavior on the forum.

Have you ever had chicken jambalaya? Or would you have a friend eat it and just tell you if it was good or bad?

I strongly advise you to try the chicken jambalaya.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Paul was a legalist Jew who was teaching Gentiles not to be taken in by legalist Judaizers.

The Legalist Judaizers were compelling the converted Gentiles to be circumcised in order for the Gentiles to become physical Jews.

The Judaizers wanted Christianity to become a religion like to their Jewish religion. It was more about the outward and making one physically part of a race.

To say that those who preach standards, and abstaining from television to be legalists and using the letter to the Galatians to prove that standard preachers are legalists is a far stretch indeed.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Give the man a cigar!

No, wait, he's probably against them. The LEGALIST!





We all know what happened to the little boy who cried 'wolf.'














What happens to the the little antinomianist who cries 'legalist!'???

Originally Posted by pelathais

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa
Can you compare the two? Just because a man preaches against television or short sleeves does that put him on the same level as a deviant? The question is ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
Yes, I agree. But I also observe that you're the one who "asked" the question. You framed it yourself to fit fit the "ridiculous" conclusion.

EB: "Wrong, I didn't start this thread, so my conclusion of it being ridiculous is well founded. My choice of using a man who preaches against television as an example was done because the Pentecostal/Charismatic view of "Legalism" is just that."

Pelathais: The question that you asked, to which I refered was, "Just because a man preaches against television or short sleeves does that put him on the same level as a deviant?"

I then pointed out that you asked that question, not me. I never made that comparison, you brought it up and then slam dunked it. The discussion is becoming something where you are arguing with yourself and the arguments that you imagine that I would make. We are also losing something in the quote and paste routines.

You have not really seen, or I have failed to make it seen that a condemnation of "legalism" is not a condemnation of holiness or standards, per se.

To condemn legalism is to condemn a system or practice of religion that leaves God out of the equation. If you don't practice "legalism" then we have no argument. But you seem kind of touchy when it comes up.

Pelathais,

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by pelathais

I think you are looking at it like a 2 dimensional sort of spectrograph. A graph or spectrum where "legalism" is far to one end and whatever is "opposite" is at the other. In looking for that "opposite" you have chosen something that is linguistically an antonym but not the real "opposite" of "legalism" as it is used within the Christian tradition.

If "legalism" is the attempt by man to earn salvation through the works of either The Old Testament Law, or some other kind of law; then the opposite of legalism would be having salvation given as a gift. This is the standard theological and philosophical interpretation based upon the teachings of the New Testament.

Paul, in the NT was dealing with those who were attempting to earn salvation through the performance of all or part of the Mosaic Law. He denounced their attempts as futile.

In today's discussion on legalism, the "legalism" involved isn't the works of the OT Law, but works and traditions that have been built up over the last 100 years or so (really about 50 or 60 years) that people are expected to do in order to earn their salvation.

These traditions and "dress codes," when administered "legalistically" are the true antithesis of the Christian faith. We must first understand that salvation is a gift and cannot be earned. Then we must ask ourselves, now that I'm saved how shall I live out my life?

As long as NT salvation remains a free gift from God, the rest of the debate becomes largely cultural. It's still an important debate! But the salvation of my brothers and sisters who have followed the NT pattern for salvation is not in question because we may disagree on cultural issues.

Again, being against "legalism" doesn't mean you are against holiness or holiness standards. It means that you are against putting a man-made price tag on the gift that God has freely given to us.

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.

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 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.

[mizpeh]

Prax, Pelathais, Phil,

This discussion has now become much more interesting and relevant. Thank you

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

It depends upon ones definition of legalism. If legalism is a preacher reading the bible, and preaching for folks to obey it or they will be lost, I disagree with you. Is this considered "works based" salvation?? That was what Paul was dealing with.

Any teaching that makes man's performance the basis for his salvation is legalism. Paul makes it very clear that salvation is by grace through faith, and even our faith is not of ourselves, so that no one can boast that their own works have saved them. Some folks have a hard time accepting that a person cannot save themselves. Man's effort to save himself always ends up as legalism.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

Any teaching that makes man's performance the basis for his salvation is legalism. Paul makes it very clear that salvation is by grace through faith, and even our faith is not of ourselves, so that no one can boast that their own works have saved them. Some folks have a hard time accepting that a person cannot save themselves. Man's effort to save himself always ends up as legalism.

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