An Opposite use of legalism?

it's just being legalistic:smilewinkgrin:

or are you being antinomian:tongue3:

 

Romans 8:29 "And those whom he foreknew, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son...."

I have this mental picture of Jesus boppin' down the road with a headset on, rock music pounding away, puffing on a joint. Jesus' speedos seemed a bit different from the way the other disciples were dressed, but who is to judge. His tattoos were pretty neat, too.

Yep, this Christian liberty is groovy. I can get saved and don't have to change a thang.

 

Exactly what I thought! :thumbs:

 

With this format, it won't post less than 10 characters. That's why I use a lot of ................ <<<<<<<< those.

 

Nevertheless we must apply Scripture at some point, and make our faith practical. The Bible does teach that "If a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" Now how long is long and how short is short may be a matter of opinion, but nevertheless there must be some attempt to practically apply the Scriptures.

The same is true on the issue of modesty, and the role of women in ministry etc. We may not agree on how these Scriptures are applied in the details, but we should agree on general principles without charging one or the other with legalism.

Legalism is really about what saves a man, these other issues are matters of practical theology. Surely in preaching we are called upon to explain in practical terms what the Bible is teaching - if that calls for us to dress differently, or get a hair cut, then so be it. I agree that an individual's holiness must not be judged upon such things, but if they understand the Bible to be teaching a matter, say on the issue of modesty, and they refuse point blank to change on the basis of liberty, then their liberty has become licence and they are in sin. Their holiness is therefore in dispute.

 

Yes, but you still seem to question those who demand Bible reasons "doing" or "not doing."

If we can't at least give a principle to support our "rules" than we need to rethink our "rules."

I always question when something is preached that I must do or not do, and no Bible reason is given.

 

I wouldn't say that kind of folk is legalist. I would say what the Bible calls it. (As someone else has already pointed out...) It is license. And they are in sin.

What it ALL comes down to is the condition of your heart.

Do you wish to obey Christ or not?

If you do then every aspect of your life will reflect a sanctified and seperated manner of living.

Do you truly wish to be conformed to the image of "His dear Son"? Then why do you look like the heathens? Why do you listen to the heathens' music, movies, opinions and philosophies?

I wholeheartedly agree with the feller/filly who imagined Jesus bee-bopping down the sidewalk with His I-pod blaring away, tattoes, piercings and tye-dyed hair!!! And some would say it is legalistic to suggest that that image is NOT holy???? I can only counter with Romans 12:1-3. "...present your BODIES a living sacrifice, HOLY, acceptable to God...Be not conformed to the IMAGE of this world....but be ye TRANSFORMED by the renewing of your mind...for I say...to every man among you...not to think of himself more highly than he ought..."

 

When I left the IFB church it was not because I wanted to smoke pot or listen to heavy metal. It was simply because I decided that I needed to obey Colossians 2:16. The ascetics can keep their rules. I'll take Christ.

Why should I submit to regulations?

 

Marijuana is easy. It harms the temple of God. It is a mind altering drug that fits in the same catagory as alcohol, etc. Plenty of principles. Heavy metal is a bit tougher. The problem there is of course association with sinful practices and lifestyles. The majority of heavy metal promotes many other sins. Again, a Bible principle.

This is a hasty generalisation. When there is a Bible reason or a Bible principle most folks that I deal with are willing to make a change.

And so many of our fundamental traditions are extra-biblical.

It is sin go to the movie theater
It is a sin to listen to all secular music
Dancing is sin
It is sin for a woman to wear trousers

None of these have any kind of Bible reasons. It does not show a legalistic heart to say "Show me where the Bible says this is wrong."

I have found that those who "get furious" are more often than not the fundamentalists who have their authority, their traditions, and their extra-biblical rules questioned. You said deny self, sacrifice, and obey the word of God. I agree - that is what we are called to do. Your last point is excellent - obey the word of God, not some man-made set of rules without a Bible basis.

 

<<<<<<<<

Ed

 

And the crux is that we have liberty in Christ.

The problem comes when people try to squeeze others into their moulds, from either side.

Yes, I will always look for a Bible reason when I hear something preached for or against. If it comes to a matter or differing views that is fine. Either submit to your pastor's authority, or lovingly explain to him why you can't and seek another church.

There is no reason for anger or becoming furious from either side.

 

Amen C4K. That sounds like a Berean to me.

Ed

 

RE;BWM and BIMI

Chris,

Obviously I am not C4K nonetheless I will try to give some identification to BWM and BIMI.

BWM is a missionary clearing house that receives and distributes funds to missionaries that are approved and sent to various fields around the world through their agency. They are historic Baptist in their theology and separation both personal and ecclesiastical and I believe they came into existance in the late 50's or early 60's.

BIMI is the same as above and started about the same time and its initials stand for Baptist International Missions Inc. its origin is linked to Dr. Lee Roberson and Tennessee Temple University.

Others who are more atuned to these agencies can fill in the particulars.

What is a Berean ...
Acts 17:10-14 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people. And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timotheus abode there still.

thjplgvp

 

Why should I obey regulations?

Why should I submit to regulations?

Whatever,

In addressing your question / statement I would respond with, why should you not obey regulations? As I have read the gospels and other epistles of the NT I found that nowhere were the disciples were told not to obey the rules placed over them except were the rules and laws of the world infringed upon the clear commands of Christ. Jesus did not do away with the Torah (written law, writers of wisdom and oral tradition) what he implied was that the importance was not in the obedience letter but the obedience to the spirit that caused their invention.

When preachers say to a congregation that they should not do certain things these are merely warnings of conduct unless backed up clear by scriptural references. As a warning the people can either accept it or ignore it but the warning stands. As protection for those who wish to heed the advice. Take dancing for instance I am in my late 50’s and I can honestly say that those who attend and participate in modern dance are playing with fire. I don’t have to go into the human anatomy of cause and reaction to say dancing is dangerous though not sin. I don’t need to quote a scripture I can quote statistics to prove that dancing and its environment leads one down a path of destruction. Are there exceptions to that observance? Yes. But are there more acceptations than tragedies? Not likely.

Can safeguards be placed in individuals lives to prevent giving into temptation? Again I say yes. Are these safeguards foolproof? No. Just like the preacher saying stay away from dancing it leads to temptation and sin is not foolproof either. After all does not the bible tell us that a fool is wiser than seven men who can render reason therefore nothing but a cell is foolproof.

Did not God tell Moses to erect a fence at the bottom of the mountain to keep the people from touching that which was holy by accident and dieing for their ignorance? When preachers give clear warnings they are not trying to infringe (most of the time) but protect people from their own ignorance.

How many wish they had never taken their first drink, petted that one time, smoked that first cigarette, took a tote of that first joint, went to that night club or bar so see if it was really as bad as their parents or the preacher said it would be, dated that unsaved person even thou they had been warned not to. In effect many are like a known bible character that went out to observe daughters of the land and instead lost her innocence and cost the lives of many. How many would say in retrospect I wish I had obeyed or listened?

Indeed why should you submit to regulations? You don’t have to, you can do what you want but you cannot say you were not warned of the consequences.

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. Hebrews 13:17

thjplgvp