I for one think the idea that someone would rather side with someone that is a homosexual, than a person that is just too strict in his interpretation of the Holy Bible is very telling of where that person stands.
I am really finding this difficult to grasp here. One person takes the word of God, and lives it too strictly, and expects others to do the same. The other blatantly rejects nature itself, and does that which is unnatural, and an abomination to God. There is no comparison!
I generally agree. However:
1) If a person has had a negative experience with a "legalist" AND...
2) Not much experience around "gays" or a single positive experience with, say a "gay" coworker or such...
... then that person may tend to weight their judgments a little heavily to one side.
1) If a person has had a negative experience with a "legalist" AND...
2) Not much experience around "gays" or a single positive experience with, say a "gay" coworker or such...
... then that person may tend to weight their judgments a little heavily to one side.
But legalism is not simply trying too hard to obey God. Theologically, it is believing that following the law is how one is saved. Paul shoots it down nicely in Galatians 3. Legalism masquerades as righteousness and salvation, while cursing (says Paul) those who fall for it. Insidious.
Of course, nobody here says that's how you're saved. It's by repenting, being baptized in water in Jesus' name (making sure your baptizer doesn't use the dreaded "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" wording, or it won't "take"), being filled with the Holy Ghost. speaking in tongues, and by following all the rules for the rest of your life. Only they may not tell you that last part right away. That comes later. And exactly which rules to follow is subject to much debate, of course.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
But legalism is not simply trying too hard to obey God. Theologically, it is believing that following the law is how one is saved. Paul shoots it down nicely in Galatians 3. Legalism masquerades as righteousness and salvation, while cursing (says Paul) those who fall for it. Insidious.
Of course, nobody here says that's how you're saved. It's by repenting, being baptized in water in Jesus' name (making sure your baptizer doesn't use the dreaded "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" wording, or it won't "take"), being filled with the Holy Ghost. speaking in tongues, and by following all the rules for the rest of your life. Only they may not tell you that last part right away. That comes later. And exactly which rules to follow is subject to much debate, of course.
Even if your skewed version were correct, it would still be miles ahead of homosexuality.
But legalism is not simply trying too hard to obey God. Theologically, it is believing that following the law is how one is saved. Paul shoots it down nicely in Galatians 3. Legalism masquerades as righteousness and salvation, while cursing (says Paul) those who fall for it. Insidious.
Of course, nobody here says that's how you're saved. It's by repenting, being baptized in water in Jesus' name (making sure your baptizer doesn't use the dreaded "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" wording, or it won't "take"), being filled with the Holy Ghost. speaking in tongues, and by following all the rules for the rest of your life. Only they may not tell you that last part right away. That comes later. And exactly which rules to follow is subject to much debate, of course.
But legalism is not simply trying too hard to obey God. Theologically, it is believing that following the law is how one is saved. Paul shoots it down nicely in Galatians 3. Legalism masquerades as righteousness and salvation, while cursing (says Paul) those who fall for it. Insidious.
Of course, nobody here says that's how you're saved. It's by repenting, being baptized in water in Jesus' name (making sure your baptizer doesn't use the dreaded "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" wording, or it won't "take"), being filled with the Holy Ghost. speaking in tongues, and by following all the rules for the rest of your life. Only they may not tell you that last part right away. That comes later. And exactly which rules to follow is subject to much debate, of course.
You will not find any "legalists" (as some would call them) in the Apostolic ranks that believe works saves anyone. But at the same time, God will reject anyone who expects to get saved, and then live a "Lawless" life.
Even if your skewed version were correct, it would still be miles ahead of homosexuality.
In defence of Timmy, not that he asked for nor even needs my help...
His version is not all that "skewed." It may be, and I hope that this is the case, that what he describes is different from your experience. His précis does describe what a very large number of people have also described as their experiences.
Given the fact that we are failing to retain our young people and even most of our converts I think it's healthy for us to re-evaluate the way we do things. In other words, are we coming up short of God's expectations in some way?
Rather than looking at the "legalist" as the one who has "gone the extra mile," I think Timmy is suggesting that the "legalist" has simply "gone the wrong way."
You will not find any "legalists" (as some would call them) in the Apostolic ranks that believe works saves anyone. But at the same time, God will reject anyone who expects to get saved, and then live a "Lawless" life.
Quite the contrary there Napoleon. I won't bog you down with the hundreds of anecdotes that I could, but remember the "half shekel" teaching (just as one example)? That taught that you could actually buy salvation and healings for your body. It was so prevalent at one time that a respected theologian from our ranks was commissioned to write an article condemning the practice in the Forward magazine.
I referenced that article in a meeting where I was speaking once and a group in the audience actually disrupted the service by trying to shout me down over the issue. One voice there was a district official.
Linear Mode
