Legalism

[dcorbett]

Again, legalism is about salvation. If said person is "imposing their 'laws' on everyone else..." and telling them that if they don't adhere to these laws then they are not saved, then that is legalism. I don't see that here. No one is saying that if women don't wear skirts, don't listen to the right kind of music, don't have the right hair length, etc. then they aren't saved. That is what legalism is.

Amen - that is why I was so hurt when I was tagged as a legalist. I NEVER said someone wasn't saved if they listened to brand X music, or if they read a NIV Bible, or if they wear pants to church. I spoke of my convictions and my walk and what I had gleaned from prayer and study of the scriptures.

The topic here is more aptly called: worldliness. How close to the world can one be comfortable with and still be comfortable with their walk with God? Or, is it holiness? How close can a person walk to God without becoming worldly?

Wow, you said it, noone could've said it better.

There is a line drawn in the sand. It goes east and west (just suppose). At the extreme north of that line is the cross. As the extreme south is the pit of the world where all the unsaved are; it is as sinful as one can get. --Many Christians try to walk as close to that line as possible: some with one foot in the world and one foot in Christianity.
Whereas the Bible says: Be not conformed to this world.
Be conformed to the image of Christ.

How close to the cross do you walk?
The discussion here is not about legalism.

Amen, amen, amen!! Preach on!!!

 

[paul wassona]

My Pastor preached on this very topic today. He talked about how some people that he counsels want him to give them scripture that will justify the sins and the sinful conditions in their lives, and he continued by saying that he could never do that - the truth of the matter is that God will walk with us when we follow His will.

Debbie Mc

Sounds like you have an excellent pastor! I preached out of John 1 beginning at verse 19 "I am who I am because of who He is!"

 

[Johnv]

Wine is a mocker (doesn't say how much) strong drink is raging. You say drinking things that mock and bring you into a rage are sinful, yet God says they cause you to go into a state of sinning.

I don't say it, God says it, when His Word says Wine makes life merry, and makes the heart glad.

...I believe you have just been proved wrong.

You claim I have been proven wrong, yet you failed miserably to provide scriptural support for your claim that consumption of alcohol is a sin, or a scriptural reference that defining corporate worship in a sanctuary or similar worship building. There is none.

 

[paul wassona]

I don't say it, God says it, when His Word says Wine makes life merry, and makes the heart glad.

was a typing error on my behalf, I meant "aren't"

You claim I have been proven wrong, yet you failed miserably to provide scriptural support for your claim that consumption of alcohol is a sin, or a scriptural reference that defining corporate worship in a sanctuary or similar worship building. There is none.

Ok, so common sense just isn't one of your stronger practices.

 

[abcgrad94]

Ok, so common sense just isn't one of your stronger practices.

Let me get this straight. You cannot support your opinions scripturally, so you personally attack the poster who asks for biblical proof? Where is the godliness in that?

See, this is a perfect example of why many of us here have a negative view of the strict IFB'ers and other denominations that elevate personal standards as God's opinion instead of their own. And yes, I'm IFB and have been all my life. I've seen this over and over and over again. . .if you can't prove "thus saith the Lord" you result to yelling and insulting and condemning those who disagree.

If you have a personal standard, fine, but don't preach it as God's word and then insult those who ask for scriptural proof. At least be honest and say it's your personal opinion.

 

[Mexdeaf]

If you have a personal standard, fine, but don't preach it as God's word and then insult those who ask for scriptural proof. At least be honest and say it's your personal opinion.

Pride will not permit them to do so.

 

[DHK]

or a scriptural reference that defining corporate worship in a sanctuary or similar worship building. There is none.

To his defense, he did say common sense would prevail, and it should.
But if you really need Scripture, here it is:

Hebrews 10:24-25 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Fellowship one with another (even worship) is commanded until Jesus comes again. We do it "as the manner to some is," or as the custom of that particular area or nation is. In the first half of the century they met in synagogues. Those were buildings. But they soon got kicked out of them. However that was their "manner." After that "their manner" of meeting was in homes. Romans 16 describes many households that were homes to different churches. Here is another example:

Acts 12:5 Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.
--Corporate prayer was being made by the church for Peter.

Acts 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
--The church where they were praying was meeting at the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark.

Buildings built solely for the use of worship and nothing else, such as we have today, did not come into existence until at least 300 years later. But the churches did gather together corporately for prayer. Many of the admonitions to pray were given "to churches," not just individuals.
When Paul wrote "Pray for me," he was writing to the church to pray for him, not individuals, per se.

1 Thessalonians 5:25 Brethren, pray for us.
--That was to the church in Thessalonica as a whole.

 

[paul wassona]

Let me get this straight. You cannot support your opinions scripturally, so you personally attack the poster who asks for biblical proof? Where is the godliness in that?

I provided proverbs 20:1 and he denied it.

See, this is a perfect example of why many of us here have a negative view of the strict IFB'ers and other denominations that elevate personal standards as God's opinion instead of their own. And yes, I'm IFB and have been all my life. I've seen this over and over and over again. . .if you can't prove "thus saith the Lord" you result to yelling and insulting and condemning those who disagree.

Is it good to expect people to meet in anything other than a building while it is pouring down rain?

For a man to know to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

If you have a personal standard, fine, but don't preach it as God's word and then insult those who ask for scriptural proof. At least be honest and say it's your personal opinion.

Proverbs 20:1 is not my opinion, it is my conviction. It is the wisdom of God penned down by Solomon.

Using Ecclesiastes use of the terms to drink wine and be merry is also vainty of vanities is it not? That neither is my opinion, but it is the words of God.

I haven't seen you rail on John for using the word "miserable", but I am not the one returning railing for railing anyway, I am just giving him a chance to rethink what he says. That is not personally attacking him, that is only your opinion.

I gave the scenarion of it being -2 for the high on Sunday and no one answered that people should not meet in a well-heated building to worship, so I must conclude by all the objections to reverencing the building and its atmosphere to show honor and respect to God as only he deserves that the main idea is all people should have either stayed home or met outside.

I wonder why C4K has never commented back on his scenario of his shower being equal to God's house?

The whole idea of God's house is a place to congregate to worship God is it not?!?

Are you saying that our worship should not be reverent then??

If your complaint is against IFB's then go find each and every one of them and straighten them all out on how you see them.:1_grouphug:

 

[abcgrad94]

If your complaint is against IFB's then go find each and every one of them and straighten them all out on how you see them.:1_grouphug:

What do you think I'm doing here by fussing at you?:laugh:

Your last post was all over the place. Let me see if I can summarize a bit. Yes, there are verses cautioning us about drunkenness. There are other verses that mention Christ turning water into wine, serving wine to his disciples during the passover, and Paul telling Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach's sake. So, we have to weigh ALL of those verses, not just pick one out and teach it as the entire gospel.

But, we are getting off topic in this thread, which is about legalism. Perhaps someone should start a separate thread on personal standards/convictions.

 

[dcorbett]

What do you think I'm doing here by fussing at you?:laugh:

Your last post was all over the place. Let me see if I can summarize a bit. Yes, there are verses cautioning us about drunkenness. There are other verses that mention Christ turning water into wine, serving wine to his disciples during the passover, and Paul telling Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach's sake. So, we have to weigh ALL of those verses, not just pick one out and teach it as the entire gospel.

How many people do you know that can drink one drink without starting to feel the buzz? If they can, they have atolerance. "Almost" only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. :smilewinkgrin: On the other hand, you take a sobriety test for driving after a couple of drinks, and that will tell you what "drunk" is - and a lot of people are totally surprised when they find out that it only takes two to be drunk in most cases.

Just thoughts from a police dispatcher who witnesses the ravages of alcohol on a daily basis.

 

[annsni]

How many people do you know that can drink one drink without starting to feel the buzz? If they can, they have atolerance.

I can have one drink without feeling buzzed and I haven't had a drink in a long time. But last time I had one, it had been years since I had had another one so it's not like I had built up any sort of tolerance. But one drink is all I had, one drink did not cause a buzz and one drink is all I wanted. I knew more would cause an issue and I don't want to get there.

But from reading the Scriptures, a "buzz" is not drunkenness. I felt a buzz once and it certainly didn't cause me to sin, to act wrongly, or do anything to me other than give me the same feeling as when my blood sugar gets low. Drunkenness in Scripture is pretty clear what it does and that's not a buzz.

 

[dcorbett]

I can have one drink without feeling buzzed and I haven't had a drink in a long time. But last time I had one, it had been years since I had had another one so it's not like I had built up any sort of tolerance. But one drink is all I had, one drink did not cause a buzz and one drink is all I wanted. I knew more would cause an issue and I don't want to get there.
But from reading the Scriptures, a "buzz" is not drunkenness. I felt a buzz once and it certainly didn't cause me to sin, to act wrongly, or do anything to me other than give me the same feeling as when my blood sugar gets low. Drunkenness in Scripture is pretty clear what it does and that's not a buzz.

Sister Ann - my sister in Christ,
I knew someone would argue that statement....it is impossible to post anything in here without someone disputing. The fact is, very few, very VERY few, hold it at one drink. The people who get arrested for DUI always excuse their drinking by saying "I only had one drink" or something to that effect...when you know for a fact that it takes more than that to be at the BAC they are at. Everyone has an excuse for their behavior.

I know that I will get multiple replies of "I only have one drink". Why have one at all?

 

[abcgrad94]

How many people do you know that can drink one drink without starting to feel the buzz? If they can, they have atolerance. "Almost" only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. :smilewinkgrin: On the other hand, you take a sobriety test for driving after a couple of drinks, and that will tell you what "drunk" is - and a lot of people are totally surprised when they find out that it only takes two to be drunk in most cases.

Just thoughts from a police dispatcher who witnesses the ravages of alcohol on a daily basis.

I agree with you, and I've never touched the stuff myself. This might sound like splitting hairs, but my issue is when people make statements that aren't directly from scripture and then tout them as scriptural. For instance, saying "drinking is a sin and God tells us not to do it," when God didn't say NOT to drink.

The Bible DOES tell us not to "be drunk with wine, wherein is excess...." but it doesn't tell us not to drink. It may be that the alcohol content of wine in Christ's time was different than what we have today, I don't know as I wasn't around back then.

As you pointed out, most folks have no idea the amount it would take for them to get drunk, so for me, common logic says not to touch it because I COULD get drunk and that would be sin.

I hope I'm making sense here. I just think that we need to make sure we're not adding our opinions to God's word and making them fact. That's what Eve did in the garden of Eden and the Devil used it as a springboard to convince her to sin.

 

[annsni]

Sister Ann - my sister in Christ,
I knew someone would argue that statement....it is impossible to post anything in here without someone disputing. The fact is, very few, very VERY few, hold it at one drink. The people who get arrested for DUI always excuse their drinking by saying "I only had one drink" or something to that effect...when you know for a fact that it takes more than that to be at the BAC they are at. Everyone has an excuse for their behavior.

I know that I will get multiple replies of "I only have one drink". Why have one at all?

Why have one Yodel? Because it's good and one more would be too much. Why have one cola? Because one is good and more is too much. A glass of wine with a nice steak is delicious. A beer with a pizza rocks. But I have chosen to abstain from drinking for our work with the youth and for my daughter's former boyfriend who struggled with alcohol. Not everyone who drinks a glass will go on to drink more. Even among the unsaved at our yacht club bar, there are those who limit themselves to one drink.

 

[DHK]

I agree with you, and I've never touched the stuff myself. This might sound like splitting hairs, but my issue is when people make statements that aren't directly from scripture and then tout them as scriptural. For instance, saying "drinking is a sin and God tells us not to do it," when God didn't say NOT to drink.

The Lord never said "Thou shalt not smoke" either. Yet for many of the same reasons you would list for not smoking you can also list for not drinking. In fact drinking is more of a drain on the health system than smoking is. If smoking was an issue in Bible times do you think that it could have been written: "Do not smoke wherein is excess..."?
For most "excess" is addiction. And for many who smoke, the answer always seems to be: "But I can stop any time I want; just watch and see."
Do you see a parallel here?

 

[abcgrad94]

For most "excess" is addiction. And for many who smoke, the answer always seems to be: "But I can stop any time I want; just watch and see."
Do you see a parallel here?

Absolutely, and I understand what you're saying.

But, if not drinking in excess really means not drinking at all, then what do we do with the fact that Christ turned water to wine, etc.? It would seem if he didn't want anyone to touch it at all, he wouldn't have made it his first miracle.

That's why I said we need to weigh all of the scriptures instead of just pulling out one and making our whole case rest on it.

 

[paul wassona]

What do you think I'm doing here by fussing at you?:laugh:

Your last post was all over the place. Let me see if I can summarize a bit. Yes, there are verses cautioning us about drunkenness. There are other verses that mention Christ turning water into wine, serving wine to his disciples during the passover, and Paul telling Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach's sake. So, we have to weigh ALL of those verses, not just pick one out and teach it as the entire gospel.

A little wine for medicine, but fruit of the vine is also called wine.

Alcohol added to medicines is to thin the blod so the medicine can act faster.

Otherwise any amount of alcohol ingested for any other purposes makes one a drunkard.

I'm not a legalist in that regard because I know Christians who feel the way you have expressed the subject of wine.

But, we are getting off topic in this thread, which is about legalism. Perhaps someone should start a separate thread on personal standards/convictions.

Not really, because it's all the things that people call others legalists over and DHK moved from the topic of salvation and leaped over into sanctification.

 

[paul wassona]

Pride will not permit them to do so.

pride in the word of God being true and every man a liar is not foolish pride.

Maybe you'd be better off not sitting in the seat of piousness and judgment?

 

[paul wassona]

To his defense, he did say common sense would prevail, and it should.
But if you really need Scripture, here it is:

Hebrews 10:24-25 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Fellowship one with another (even worship) is commanded until Jesus comes again. We do it "as the manner to some is," or as the custom of that particular area or nation is. In the first half of the century they met in synagogues. Those were buildings. But they soon got kicked out of them. However that was their "manner." After that "their manner" of meeting was in homes. Romans 16 describes many households that were homes to different churches. Here is another example:

Acts 12:5 Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.
--Corporate prayer was being made by the church for Peter.

Acts 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
--The church where they were praying was meeting at the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark.

Buildings built solely for the use of worship and nothing else, such as we have today, did not come into existence until at least 300 years later. But the churches did gather together corporately for prayer. Many of the admonitions to pray were given "to churches," not just individuals.
When Paul wrote "Pray for me," he was writing to the church to pray for him, not individuals, per se.

1 Thessalonians 5:25 Brethren, pray for us.
--That was to the church in Thessalonica as a whole.

Very good post.

There were BIG reasons why Christians didn't build church buildings until 300 AD and later, it was called fear of persecution.

 

[paul wassona]

How many people do you know that can drink one drink without starting to feel the buzz? If they can, they have atolerance. "Almost" only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. :smilewinkgrin: On the other hand, you take a sobriety test for driving after a couple of drinks, and that will tell you what "drunk" is - and a lot of people are totally surprised when they find out that it only takes two to be drunk in most cases.

Just thoughts from a police dispatcher who witnesses the ravages of alcohol on a daily basis.

You've got a very tough job and I will pray God keep you and sustain you with ample amounts of grace!:thumbsup: