WOW!!! T F Tenney - "Let the Redeemed of the Lord DRESS SO" - Page 22

RevDWW · #**211** 07-03-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tv1a

Rhetoric or intimidation. You be the judge.

Judge not lest ye be judged - Jesus Christ

It seems that many a Liberal who eschews a Conservative stance as judgemental often becomes judgemental is trying to belittle it.

Kind of hypercritical when demanding tolerance but not being tolerant of views that are different then yours.

tv1a · #**212** 07-03-2007, 10:22 PM

There has to be an element of truth to have honesty. Truth is not subjective. One's interpretation of truth is supbjective. If one believes his definition of holiness is correct, even if's contrary to scripture than I would have to say it''s conviction. When one proclaims their convictions are salvational, than I would call it rhetoric or intimidation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd

conviction or honesty. I cant tell which. i believe both.

Brother Price · #**213** 07-03-2007, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RevDWW

Judge not lest ye be judged - Jesus Christ

It seems that many a Liberal who eschews a Conservative stance as judgemental often becomes judgemental is trying to belittle it.

Kind of hypercritical when demanding tolerance but not being tolerant of views that are different then yours.

Would they not be legalists in their own right? I know of several liberals who hate, and I mean hate standards. I know of some who simply see them as convictions. I know of ultra cons who are meek and mild in their beliefs being presented.

But, would not a liberal who attacks standards with a venomous bile be considered a legalist in their own right?

tv1a · #**214** 07-03-2007, 10:39 PM

I have stated this many times and I have proven it with words many times that I defend an individual's right to personal convictions. I do not despise personal convictions. I have defended personal convictions. I support personal convictions.

Here is an example of how it works in my solar system. Imagine if someone has a personal conviction against all types of secular music. No exceptions. My personal conviction is to take it on a song by song basis and see if it passes the Phillipians 4:8 thought process test. I would not go out of my way to deliberately do something to give that person a reason to break that conviction.

If that person decides my Bibilal convictions are somehwat less than their, than we are going to discuss what makes their subjective standards holier than Biblical principle..

Quote:

Originally Posted by RevDWW

Judge not lest ye be judged - Jesus Christ

It seems that many a Liberal who eschews a Conservative stance as judgemental often becomes judgemental is trying to belittle it.

Kind of hyperactive when demanding tolerance but not being tolerant of views that are different then yours.

RevDWW · #**215** 07-03-2007, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Price

Would they not be legalists in their own right? I know of several liberals who hate, and I mean hate standards. I know of some who simply see them as convictions. I know of ultra cons who are meek and mild in their beliefs being presented.

But, would not a liberal who attacks standards with a venomous bile be considered a legalist in their own right?

I don't think you could call that legalism. It just ain't right to hate each other. People are supposed to know we are this disciples by how we show love one to another. If someone attacks me it's a natural instinct to attack back, but that is contrary to His Spirit. I have always believed I need to cut everyone as much slack as I wish to receive my self. Now that doesn't mean I can't point out something incorrect in someone else life, but I need to do so by how I'd like that done in mine.

RevDWW · #**216** 07-03-2007, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tv1a

I have stated this many times and I have proven it with words many times that I defend an individual's right to personal convictions. I do not despise personal convictions. I have defended personal convictions. I support personal convictions.

Here is an example of how it works in my solar system. Imagine if someone has a personal conviction against all types of secular music. No exceptions. My personal conviction is to take it on a song by song basis and see if it passes the Phillipians 4:8 thought process test. I would not go out of my way to deliberately do something to give that person a reason to break that conviction.

That's seems like a good way to approach it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tv1a

If that person decides my Bibilal convictions are somehwat less than their, than we are going to do.

Can you clarify this sentence?

tv1a · #**217** 07-03-2007, 11:06 PM

This is so easy to refute that even a caveman could do it.
I see your cut and past method of posting working wonders again. Please cite the sources if you are going to plagarize... The more things change the more they stay the same.

Obviously you haven't read my previous post or you are oblivious to the comments. Let me remind you I have no problem with personal convictions. I know ultra cons who have a wonderful attitude. Those wonderful people are few and far between. The conservative movement has been hijacked by hardliners who insist it's their way or the highway. Where are the men like Paul who stood up to this attitude in his showdown with Peter? Peter reeked of legalism until Paul called him out on it.

A so-called liberal believes the scripture that says work out your own salvation with fear and trembling...
A legalist insist they work out your salvation and make you fear and tremble while doing it...

The Bible has defined legalism. Bibllical definition of legalism is a far cry your feeble attempt at word manipulation.

If I were a legalist, I would insist you believe the same way I do. I don't do that. I have never suggested a person is going to hell because they don't believe as I. I have suggested insisting subjective standards are not biblical nor salvational.

Hope the simple caveman explaination helps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Price

Would they not be legalists in their own right? I know of several liberals who hate, and I mean hate standards. I know of some who simply see them as convictions. I know of ultra cons who are meek and mild in their beliefs being presented.

But, would not a liberal who attacks standards with a venomous bile be considered a legalist in their own right?