Any Legalist out there??

Counselor, I've lost track of how many times I've already answered it. Let me put it this way: YES, women should dress modestly - that's scripture. But by what authority to *you* (or anyone else) get to decide for others what meets the requirements of modest apparel? When did you take over the Holy Spirit's role of speaking to someone's conscious, or deciding what will and what won't hurt someone's witness in a circumstance you know nothing about?

 

Brian,

Let me phrase it this way... When we go to war or for that matter play a game, we wear different uniforms so we will be able to tell who is who. Should we as soldiers of the cross have a different uniform than the world? Should people be able to look at us, watch us and listen to us and be able to tell that we are Christians? YES!

As for my authority, read Titus 2:14,15

Now my question would be, "Are you a peculiar people" or just another person in love with this world? Someone that has no problem "fitting in" with worldly ways?

Can the world see Jesus in you, in your walk, talk, activities, dress or do you look and act just like them so as to make them comfortable?

 

Sure! But *you* get to decide what the everyone's "modest uniform" looks like? Why not *me*? Why not my aunt Ruth?

You're misapplying that verse to justify misused authority.

I am very aware of how my appearance and actions may affect my witness. But my whole point is I let the word and the Holy Spirit guide me and speak to my conscious. It is *not* your job, and the moment you try to take over the role of the Holy Spirit, instead of the sweetness of an obedient relationship with God, we are left with the stench of legalism.

Tell me, have the Amish or Hutterites gone to far in their "separation from the world", in their zeal for being a "peculiar people"? Why or why not? Why do you not let *their* personal opinions on how to interpret verses on dress, separation, etc, be your guide in how to appear and act?

 

Well I'm sorry, I thought that God used His preachers to "rightly divide" the word!

I preach as the Holy Spirit leads, that is my job, I use only the Bible and careful prayer to prepare. I have no problem with you not wanting to do what I say, however, what I say is of the Lord and that in turn WILL be used of the Holy Spirit to guide and convict.

With that said, I leave you with a prayer and the hope that if there be anything that hinders you from growing in Christ that He will show you. I have planted the seed of the Word, now it is up to the Holy Spirit to nourish it.

May the Lord have His way. I Cor. 6:20
All due respect
Counselor

 

<Sigh> On last time. You said:

But the bible says:

Which, literally translated mean "Likewise also the women in hanging robes, appropriate . . . "

You say that to believe that women should wear a dress is legalism but God says "appropriate hanging robes."

So, once again, you keep saying, "NO" God did not err, but you still insist that believing in ladies wearing dresses or skirts is legalism. If both statements are true you are accusing God of being a legalist!

 

Why not God? He seems quite able to speak for Himself, and has done so. Read Tertullian on 1 Timothy 2:9, and John Gill on the same verse. Historically the churches have believed that verse sets the normative for ladies dress, not society, custom, you, or your aunt Ruth!

 

I assumed that's what you were getting at, but I was hoping you would just come out and say it instead of attempting to question my belief in the honesty of God. Thanks for the benefit of the doubt though.

I have not seen any English translation that uses "hanging robes" here, nor any lexical aids either. I'm sure some exist, but I would submit that possibly they read that way because of the translator applying his preference into the translation. It appears the Greek word appears only once in the entire NT, here. The vast majority of translations and lexicons translate it simply as "apparel" or "clothing" without being specific as to what kind exactly. Why go against this widely accepted translation, unless you have a personal preference to bolster? I see no reason to accept the "hanging robe" translation over the generic "apparel" translation.

As well, "hanging robes" technically makes the legalism of those who would have women wear only dresses even more clear - for most dresses I've seen, especially modest ones, are not a "hanging robe" but rather a skirt with a blouse, or a full-body skirt. A "hanging robe" is what people in the choir wear in the larger churches. Catholic cardinals wear hanging robes. Jesus probably wore a hanging robe. If you are so convinced that the translation should be "hanging robes", why are you arguing for something other than a hanging robe? I think the answer is clear - personal preference disguised as scripture - legalism.

 

It seems that your problem is two fold. 1. You don't understand Greek, and 2. You don't understand English.

The Greek word is καταστολε. It is a construct. That is, two words stuck together to form one word. Historically, Tertullian and Gill expound on the word. Read their commentaries. Both are available on-line.

Κατα is a simple Greek verb meaning "down" or "down from" or "descending" etc. See Thayer, page 326.

Στολε is a common Greek noun meaning "a loose outer garmet which extends to the feet." See Thayer page 589.

The English word "robe" is not limited to a bathrobe or choir robe, as you seem to believe, but means, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "R" Volume, page 734, "1. A long loose outer garmet. . ."

The English word "apparel" means, according to the OED, "5b To invest with an official robe."

Don't forget, the translators of the KJV were Anglican priests. To them the English word "apparel" meant "to wear the ecclesiastal robes of the clergy."

The word translated "modest" is the Greek word κοσμιω and does not mean "well covered" as you seem to suggest, but means "appropriate" or "not ostentatious" in the sense of "I live in a modest home." My home is not "well covered" but is appropriate to my station in life and not ostentatious. Thayer says, "seemly" "well ordered."

Now, let's ask the question again. Do you call me a legalist, and thus a heretic, based on what God's inspired word says, or based on your possibly flawed understanding of both the Greek and English words? Surely you don't believe your understanding to be infallible? Could it be possible that you are calling people names, such as "legalist," without, yourself, having a full and complete understanding of what the bible has to say on this subject?

 

[Comment regarding my Moderator status edited.]

LOL! So they really meant, when they translated 1 Tim 2:9, "women adorn themselves in modest ecclesiastal robes of the clergy". OK, whatever. Do you make the women in your church wear ecclesiastical robes of the clergy? Do you wear them yourself, being clergy?[/quote]

Where did I suggest that?

First, you are not asking me the question again because you never asked me it before. Second, never have I equated "legalist" and "heretic". I don't believe legalists are heretics, and have never implied otherwise. And you claim *I* don't understand English?

Seems to me your understanding is likely the flawed one. If you cannot even handle what *I* say, how can I trust what you tell me about what others say? But to answer your question, I'm not calling you a legalist in the first place. I'm saying that if anyone takes a verse (like 1 Tim 2:9), and twists it based on their personal preferences to demand something beyond what scripture says, implying that the action will make them more holy or more pleasing to God, that is legalism. Whether the dress/pants issue, whether what Bible version to read, whether drinking softdrinks with/without caffeine, whether a whole whack of similar silly issues. Bottom line is this: if you try to usurp the role of the Holy Spirit in pricking someone's conscious on matters of this nature, you are practicing legalism.

Possibly, but you have not yet shown that my definition of legalism is wrong. Could it be possible that you and others are calling people names, such as "carnal", "worldly", "compromising", saying they don't understand English, implying and/or explicitly saying they are not pleasing the Lord, implying they believe God erred, are spiritually immature, are possibly not genuinely God fearing washed in the blood Christ honoring people, without, yourself, having a full and complete understanding of what the bible has to say on this subject, just because I believe a woman can wear pants and still be dressed modestly? Surely you don't believe your understanding to be infallible?

Give me a break, Thomas. This is getting absolutely ridiculous. Look on the outward appearance all you want, I know where God looks. It amazes me how you get so tripped up over something as trivial as the dress/pants issue, yet you ignore Rom 1:29 and 2 Cor 12:20, which lists "debates" in the same list as "murder", "fornication" and "haters of God". God forbid a woman wear pants to church one day, but let's "debate" it on the forums, insulting everyone who disagrees with us, till the cows come home!

[Vicious attack on the church I pastor edited.]

[ May 16, 2002, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

It wasn't a comment, it was an honest question.

It wasn't meant to be an attack on your church, although I apologize for saying it anyway.

 

Please do not mischaracterize what I said. I said the translators, being familiar with early Modern English, knew full well that "apparel" meant more than merely "clothing."

It is implicit in your saying that "modesty" is the issue. Your definition of what constitutes "modesty" seems to differ from the meaning of both the Greek word and the word as used in the KJV.

To teach theological error is the dictionary definition of "heresy."

Please point out the flaw in my reasoning? Do you contend that κατα does not mean as I quoted from Thayer? Do you contend that στολε does not mean as I quoted from Thayer? Do you contend that Tertullian and Gill are wrong in their understanding of καταστολε? If so, on what historic basis?

I haven't questioned your definition of legalism, only your application to those who you disagree with.

Please don't lie about what I have said. I have not called anyone "carnal," "worldly," or "compromising."

Your own statement proved you don't have a good understanding of the English word "robe." I have not said nor implied that anyone is not pleasing the Lord, is spiritually immature, or not genuinely God fearing or washed in the blood of Christ. Please try to keep the discussion honest.

You are correct, it is ridiculous to call me a legalist because I disagree with you. And, please don't mischacterize what I believe. It is very dishonest.

Once again you fail to understand God's word. The Greek word is εριδοσ and it means "strife." Rather like you are doing by insisting that I am a legalist because I disagree with you.

Perhaps you, and your church, feel that way, but I don't care what they wear, as long as they come! If your church does such terrible things perhaps you should find a better church.

 

Amazing. You've twisted this up so much I don't know where to begin. So I won't. Thanks for the " εριδοσ ", I'm done.

 

I find this discussion so interesting. THere are some that love to title others legalist. I have been called a legalist for not using birth control. Just because I do not put poison in my body I am now a leagalist. I have been called a leagalist because I wear only loose flowing apparel that pertains to women. Just for wearing them I am legalist. When I wore men's clothing and short mini's I was well accepted and one of the "Christian" crowd. But, when I began to dress the way God would have me dress so as not to have my backside outlined in jeans and my body exposed I was now a legalist.
I also find in interesting that these people who call me and others like me legalist have no problem with how they name call brothers and sisters in Christ. If they felt we were so wrong by trying to apply Biblical principles should they reprove us in private and be praying that we grow to maturity since we are so immature according to them.

HCL

 

Headcoveredlady,

For the record, I have not called you or anyone a "legalist" on this board, despite everyone saying I have (some other people need to reread what I actually and repeatedly said, especially before falsely accusing *me* of lying). What I *have* done is define "legalism" as I understand it, and from reading your posts, you do not fit my description.

God bless,
Brian

 

Headcoveredlady, I tend to agree. It is very sad that today's Baptists have forgotten the Baptist Distinctives to the point where they refuse to allow soul liberty to those of us who have different convictions.

Two weeks ago I preached a message on "head coverings." Many of our ladies wear head coverings to church, and just as many do not. I preached that I believed in "head coverings." </font>

• The first "head covering" I believe in is to cover our heads with Charity. We must first demonstrate our love for the brethren, even those who have convictions which differ from our own. </font>
• The second "head covering" is to cover our heads with Nobility. We, as the Bereans (Acts 17:11), must be noble of character, and be willing to search the scriptures to know if these things are true. The idea that "we already know it all" is the greatest hindrance to learning. </font>
• The third "head covering" is to cover our heads with Humility. We must be willing to humble ourselves and admit when we are wrong. If we find the bible teaches something we have not been doing, we must be willing to start doing it. And if we find the bible does not teach that which we have been doing, we must be willing to give it up.</font>

It is only when we have these three "head coverings" firmly in place are we prepared to discuss the deeper things of scripture.

 

Hey Dr. Cassidy, I like those head coverings! They are cute. Are they come in all colors, shapes and sizes? Now if we only remember to wear them all the time....

 

Amen! The hard part is remembering to "put on your hat" before you leave the house in the morning.

 

There is a difference between legalism and being legalistic.

Legalism is the belief that law must be added to grace for one to be saved. The book of Galatians is the death knell of legalism. Being legalistic is adhering to a set of man-imposed codes of behavior which Scripture either does not mention or references in general, and man imposes the particulars. Romans 14 is the dell-knell for being legalistic.

Such is the case of drinking. Scripture teaches that wine is good and a gift from God, but drunkenness is forbidden. Man takes that and says that wine is evil and anyone found drinking it is probably not a Christian.

Legalism is always a characteristic of the weaker brethren. And while the true believer is free to do anything in clear conscience, Scripture admonishes us to cede to the weaker brother - so long as clear Scriptural truth and the gospel is not compromised.

Rom 14:20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for any one to make others fall by what he eats;
21 it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble.
22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God; happy is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves.
23 But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
15:1 ¶ We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves;
2 let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to edify him.

Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,
14 instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth.
15 To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted.

 

Brian,
Ok, thank you for that.

Mr.Cassidy,
Those are interesting headcoverings you talk about. I try to wear those especially the one about nobility, seeking matters out in SCripture. I also obviously wear a physical covering as a symbol of me being in my God-given position. Did you say that women in your church wear physical coverings?


HCL

 

Some do, some don't. I remarked that some women need a stronger reminder to be submissive than others. I know some ladies who should wear a 20 pound brick on their heads as a reminder to be submissive.

And the lady who laughed the loudest when her husband shouted "Amen!" is also the lady who has the strongest will of any of the ladies in the church, realizes she does not submit easily, and always wears a head covering as a reminder. May God richly bless her, and may her tribe increase!