Homosexuality Or Legalism--Which Is Worse?

[Evang.Benincasa]

2Co 5:1-21

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight: ) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we LABOUR, that, whether present or absent, we MAY BE ACCEPTED of him. For we must ALL appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be GOOD OR BAD. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart. For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause. For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
2Co 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should NOT henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are BECOME new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the MINISTRY of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us THE WORD of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you BY US: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

Second letter to Corinthian church chapter five is speaking of the βήμα a word still in use in the Modern Greek. Paul speaks of this event as being future in the context of the chapter of 2nd Corinthians five. The βήμα is where Greek athletes were be awarded the laurel wreath. Remember that all would appear before this throne and it's the same throne, which is white throne of judgement.

I didn't know that the PCI group had Inclusionists in it? That is an interesting thought though?

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Joseph

But what some here call "Legalism" is in reference to what preachers are preaching for their congregation to do after salvation or the born again experience. That is from what I am reading anyway. So they are not preaching that they are saved by "works", but preaching that they continue in salvation by doing good works (i.e. living a holy life). Would this still be identified as legalism?

I have always taken the position that a pastor must lead according to his convictions and stand on his principles if he is going to be effective. Those who attend a particular church have to decide whether they share his convictions and willing to support those convictions. Because they don't share his convictions and choose to attend church elsewhere doesn't mean they don't love the Lord or don't believe in holiness.

I make a distinction between what is my personal convictions and what is holiness. When someone teaches outward standards as making one holy that is in my opinion an attempt to establish one's own righteousness with legalistic man-made regulations. The Bible teaches we are given a holy standing in Christ. Our Christian walk is one of simply allowing the righteousness of Christ to be reflected in us by walking in the Spirit.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

I have always taken the position that a pastor must lead according to his convictions and stand on his principles if he is going to be effective. Those who attend a particular church have to decide whether they share his convictions and willing to support those convictions. Because they don't share his convictions and choose to attend church elsewhere doesn't mean they don't love the Lord or don't believe in holiness.

I make a distinction between what is my personal convictions and what is holiness. When someone teaches outward standards as making one holy that is in my opinion an attempt to establish one's own righteousness with legalistic man-made regulations. The Bible teaches we are given a holy standing in Christ. Our Christian walk is one of simply allowing the righteousness of Christ to be reflected in us by walking in the Spirit.

But can our neglect cause us to become unholy?

I do understand what you are saying above, as our Holiness is not based upon what we do. I think there is a line that cannot be crossed when preaching on Holiness.

But I do believe what we do CAN effect where we stand as far as holiness goes. So our doing things do not make us Holy, but not obeying scriptures, or doing things contrary to scriptures, in my opinion, could effect our stand with God.

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

2Co 5:1-21

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight: ) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we LABOUR, that, whether present or absent, we MAY BE ACCEPTED of him. For we must ALL appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be GOOD OR BAD. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart. For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause. For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
2Co 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should NOT henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are BECOME new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the MINISTRY of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us THE WORD of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you BY US: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

Second letter to Corinthian church chapter five is speaking of the βήμα a word still in use in the Modern Greek. Paul speaks of this event as being future in the context of the chapter of 2nd Corinthians five. The βήμα is where Greek athletes were be awarded the laurel wreath. Remember that all would appear before this throne and it's the same throne, which is white throne of judgement.

I didn't know that the PCI group had Inclusionists in it? That is an interesting thought though?

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

If you have me in mind as an Inclusionist, you are very mistaken. Why is it that when anyone sets forth the Biblical position that a person is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from works, folks like yourself want to place them in some extreme bracket such as inclusionists? It seems to really upset legalists that anyone would want to take away from them boasting rights for having saved themselves by their works. I understand the feeling, since it's these works that build for them the exclusiveness that makes them feel they are saved and everyone else who doesn't do their works are lost. Being part of a uc club is a real source of pride for most uc adherents I know.

Originally Posted by Amos

On another thread, tv1a and RandyWayne are promoting the idea that legalism is worse and more difficult to overcome than homosexuality.

What say ye?

Doesn't homosexuality stem from legalism?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle comes against an immoral group wanting to place porn in our city library.

Using homosexuals to be compared to legalism still makes no sense?


FORT LAUDERDALE - Mayor Jim Naugle and religious leaders held a news conference Tuesday to draw attention to what they described as the moral and health risks of gay sex.

Naugle is in a political war with gays that started this summer when he said public bathrooms in Fort Lauderdale are plagued by gay men cruising for sex and added he uses the term "homosexual" because "most of them aren't gay. They're unhappy."

At a news conference Tuesday in front of City Hall, Naugle and other conservative speakers called on gays to stop having promiscuous sex, in order to stem Broward County's HIV/AIDS crisis.

Mayor Naugle angers gay community
Although the Health Department has no statistics concerning how many cases of HIV are contracted via sex in public bathrooms or parks, Naugle ties the two together.

"I think Broward County is forever changed from this exercise," he said. "We are going to have less of this activity and I think we're going to save some lives in this county."

A Broward County Health Department official said some statistics the mayor and his supporters have been using are outdated. For example, according to AIDS surveillance manager Pat Callahan Taylor, Broward used to be first in the nation in the number of reported AIDS cases per 100,000 residents. That's no longer true, though the county is likely still near the top.

Broward does have an HIV/AIDS crisis and it has been ongoing for years, she said. But it's not isolated to gay men. Black, heterosexual women make up a significant number of new HIV cases. Women make up a third of the county's roughly 6,900 HIV cases diagnosed over the past 10 years.

"I think it's really important when you're looking at the numbers to not just look at parts of it," Taylor said. "One of our favorite quotes is, 'If you torture a statistic long enough, it will confess to anything.' And I think that's what we've seen."

HIV experts say research shows that unprotected sex is just as risky for heterosexual couples as for gay men.

Though Fort Lauderdale is considered one of the most gay-friendly tourist destinations in the country, it has become Ground Zero for a bitter fight about the morality of homosexuality. Speakers at Tuesday's news conference veered from the dangers of gay sex to discuss the Bible, and what God thinks of gays.

The speakers included: the Rev. O'Neal Dozier of Pompano Beach's Worldwide Christian Center; medical doctor John Diggs of Massachusetts, who wrote a paper titled "The Health Risks of Gay Sex"; religious radio personality Janet Folger, of Faith2Action; Gary Cass, president of the Christian Anti-Defamation League; Pastor Willie McBride of Lauderdale Christian Center, in Plantation; and the mayor.

In front of a banner declaring "Naugle is right," Dozier announced that the group and their "Healthy Public Places" effort were reaching out to gays "in the spirit of love." He said, "Our coalition is not anti-gay. We are anti-sin."

One of the negative impacts of this "abomination," he said, is the spread of HIV/AIDS.

"I don't want to see God destroy America in the way he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah," Dozier said.

"We are concerned [about] the moral fiber of this city," McBride said.

In the audience, gay activists said the speakers were using the HIV/AIDS issue to stigmatize gays and condone violence against them.

"This is unacceptable!" shouted Broward resident Michael Rajner, president of Campaign to End AIDS. "You're using the Bible as a weapon against the community!"

Rajner, 36, said he contracted HIV in New York and has lived 12 years with AIDS.

"You are demonizing AIDS!" he shouted.

"Every hate crime that comes out of here is at your feet!" shouted Anthony Niedwiecki, who helped form a group called Unite Fort Lauderdale last month in the wake of the mayor's comments.

Niedwiecki was holding a printout of an article about the murder of Kenneth Cummings Jr. in Houston, whose suspected killer told the Houston Chronicle last month that he was sending Cummings to hell because he was gay.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

If you have me in mind as an Inclusionist, you are very mistaken. Why is it that when anyone sets forth the Biblical position that a person is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from works, folks like yourself want to place them in some extreme bracket such as inclusionists? It seems to really upset legalists that anyone would want to take away from them boasting rights for having saved themselves by their works. I understand the feeling, since it's these works that build for them the exclusiveness that makes them feel they are saved and everyone else who doesn't do their works are lost. Being part of a uc club is a real source of pride for most uc adherents I know.

Now wait a minute I didn't start this thread, nor do I think I'm an extremist or some religious law keeper. Was it not you who said that you DON'T have to be water baptized, or you DON'T have to believe in One God?

You DON'T have to speak in tongues? What am I leaving out?

In fact is it not true that while you claim that you believe in Acts 2:38 formula, it is not really necessary for salvation?

I have this question can a person lose their salvation?

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

If you have me in mind as an Inclusionist, you are very mistaken. Why is it that when anyone sets forth the Biblical position that a person is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from works, folks like yourself want to place them in some extreme bracket such as inclusionists? It seems to really upset legalists that anyone would want to take away from them boasting rights for having saved themselves by their works. I understand the feeling, since it's these works that build for them the exclusiveness that makes them feel they are saved and everyone else who doesn't do their works are lost. Being part of a uc club is a real source of pride for most uc adherents I know.

He's probably just probing to see how you react. oloroid

Okay, so you're not an inclusionist.

Nevertheless, you've said some pretty harsh things about legalists here. What would be helpful, given the heretofore-unsettled definition of legalism, is for you to point out the legalists you know, and what specific beliefs, actions, or teachings they have adopted that cause them to fall into the category.

Are you up for that?


Joseph has touched on an aspect of the teaching of holiness standards that I think has been missing here. What do YOU think about THIS????

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

He's probably just probing to see how you react. oloroid

Okay, so you're not an inclusionist.

I wanted to see if TB would lean more towards Inclusionism. It would be also interesting of how many PCI Brothers were leaning towards Inclusionism, which I would doubt that would of been the case.

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Nevertheless, you've said some pretty harsh things about legalists here.

Agreed, and that those who hold to outward standards of dress and behavior would be considered to be Rabbinical legalists who think that their performance OUTSIDE of the realm of the Holy Ghost to gain salvation.

TB, spoke about HAVING to repent? I would like to know what he meant by that comment.

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

What would be helpful, given the heretofore-unsettled definition of legalism, is for you to point out the legalists you know, and what specific beliefs, actions, or teachings they have adopted that cause them to fall into the category.

Are you up for that?

That would be splendid, I look forward to seeing that myself.

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Joseph has touched on an aspect of the teaching of holiness standards that I think has been missing here. What do YOU think about THIS????

Await the comments by TB, on these issues.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

A person can ........ themself.

You do agree with this, don't you?

TB, have you ever answered the above?