Homosexuality Or Legalism--Which Is Worse?

[Evang.Benincasa]

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.

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.

Originally Posted by pelathais

Of course, whoever framed the thread name appears to have put it together in the first place.

And you are very correct in emphasizing the need to worship and pray with people in order to understand them. At least IMO. But how far "out there" have you practiced this? Ever pray and worship with trinitarians? Charismatics? What about trying out the liturgical groups, Lutherans, Anglican and Catholics?

Yes, and?

Originally Posted by pelathais

I have sensed some profound moves of God in some of the most unexpected places. But then again, I've also witnessed some real wacky stuff in my williness to open up like that.

I have also had the same experiences, but what has kept you and I continuing to move forward? Being an evangelist and traveling to different areas and having pastors send you and your family to different places where you have never been. Or even met the pastor or his congregation and seeing all kinds of things that I have never seen before, but still keeping in mind not wanting to miss God or judge before the time. I want to do my job right and therefore I need to wait until all the information is in and react only as the Holy Ghost leads.

That's were wisdom must be employed and if I can pass that knowledge on to other Brothers and Sisters in the church family and they receive it, then we can all carefully build a local congregation.


In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Wait a minute my father was an atheist, and so were a large majority of his friends. He and his crew would have told you that it was more an experience with religious people as a whole. You are looking at the bug on the leaf by insisting that conservative, standard preaching Pentecostals have a large number of people adversely affected by their group.

I have not said that (in bold above). I have said that "legalists" have "gone the wrong way." See below: your comments about "balanced..."

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I would go further that in the time we are living in people are saying that all religion is adversely affecting the world as a whole. With failures like Juanita Bynum, Randy and Paula White, Jimmy Swaggart, and Jimmy Bakker the liberal Charismatic movement is not winning any roses. I believe as the stock market continues to overheat and mortgages are blowing out left and right, and more financial problems continue to slam into this country we shall see people returning to a more stable Christianity.

You are correct about the failings you cite, and I hope you are correct about the "returning to a more stable Christianity..."

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Will I lose my daughters if I tell them they can't hang out down in Fort Lauderdale city?

I can only guess that this is not the place that I would want my daughter to hang out either... But giving that guidance to young people is not "legalism." You are constructing strawmen and then knocking them down- and I agree, knock those guys down. But getting back to "legalism..."

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Please, this is about relationship with the Holy Ghost and getting into the Word of God. People want the Word, and they fall in love with the Holy Ghost. This is about the persuasion of the Lord drawing all men nigh. I don't have to reinvent the wheel, I just need to hit the streets everyday and keep doing Bible studies and baptizing people who WANT to change their lives. We can't make anyone do anything, all we can do is preach the Word and let God give the increase.

What you describe here is the antithesis of legalism. You are talking about a real faith held in one's heart.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

That would not be correct, because anyone from a motocross racer to the woman who collects Hummel figuriens when you love something you become fanatical about it, and when the elders help with leading and teaching with balance, everyone is happier.

Becoming "fanatical" about your relationship with Jesus Christ is not "legalism." Legalism happens when the relationship is lost or marginalized and the person then grinds down on their own particular set of standards or rules to try and enforce their own cultural views.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.



Yes, and?



I have also had the same experiences, but what has kept you and I continuing to move forward? Being an evangelist and traveling to different areas and having pastors send you and your family to different places where you have never been. Or even met the pastor or his congregation and seeing all kinds of things that I have never seen before, but still keeping in mind not wanting to miss God or judge before the time. I want to do my job right and therefore I need to wait until all the information is in and react only as the Holy Ghost leads.

That's were wisdom must be employed and if I can pass that knowledge on to other Brothers and Sisters in the church family and they receive it, then we can all carefully build a local congregation.


In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

I think were losing each other in the cut and paste quoting thing.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I have not said that (in bold above). I have said that "legalists" have "gone the wrong way." See below: your comments about "balanced..."

You are correct about the failings you cite, and I hope you are correct about the "returning to a more stable Christianity..."

I can only guess that this is not the place that I would want my daughter to hang out either... But giving that guidance to young people is not "legalism." You are constructing strawmen and then knocking them down- and I agree, knock those guys down. But getting back to "legalism..."

What you describe here is the antithesis of legalism. You are talking about a real faith held in one's heart.


Becoming "fanatical" about your relationship with Jesus Christ is not "legalism." Legalism happens when the relationship is lost or marginalized and the person then grinds down on their own particular set of standards or rules to try and enforce their own cultural views.

Wait a minute since definitions are being lost among us we need to know what YOU consider "Legalism".

By me asking you to define this term we can see where this discussion is leading.

[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]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Wait a minute since definitions are being lost among us we need to know what YOU consider "Legalism".

By me asking you to define this term we can see where this discussion is leading.

Yes, good. Thanks.

Legalism happens when the relationship with God is lost or marginalized and the person then grinds down on their own particular set of standards or rules to try and enforce their own cultural views.

Legalism is the idea that a particular set of rules of conduct must be performed in order to aquire or ensure salvation. These "rules" are understood to not be explicitly defined in the New Testament, but are added on to the New Testament's requirements for all Christians.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Oh here we go again.

. . . . . . . . .













I think I need medical attention!

[Evang.Benincasa]

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 not practice "legalism" then we have no argument. But you seem kind of touchy when it comes up.

My wanting to defend came from thinking that you were defending what most believe Legalsim to be and that is standard preaching ministers.
Since that is not what yopu believe as you have said that legalism is a system that leaves out God. Since you have made that statement we have no argument.

Now have you ever had Boudin Rouge?

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Yes, good. Thanks.

Legalism happens when the relationship with God is lost or marginalized and the person then grinds down on their own particular set of standards or rules to try and enforce their own cultural views.

I know Apostolic ministers and congregations who have a great realtionship with God. Now Mother Teresa of Calcutta is another story. I guess she would rate as a legalist?

Originally Posted by pelathais

Legalism is the idea that a particular set of rules of conduct must be performed in order to aquire or ensure salvation. These "rules" are understood to not be explicitly defined in the New Testament, but are added on to the New Testament's requirements for all Christians.

Now this would be a cause of debate, because one would have to prove beyond the shadow of doubt what the early church thought was good behavior for a devout follower of Christ.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

My wanting to defend came from thinking that you were defending what most believe Legalsim to be and that is standard preaching ministers.
Since that is not what yopu believe as you have said that legalism is a system that leaves out God. Since you have made that statement we have no argument.

Now have you ever had Boudin Rouge?

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

I had to Google that, so I guess there's your answer. LOL

No. I do not eat food made with blood. I know that there are many who will say that if it's cooked as in this particular dish, it fine. But I just stay away.