The hidden danger of legalism

So, salamander, let me see if I understand you correctly:

If my pastor dresses like the rest of the men around here, in jeans and western shirts, that is equal to transvestite behavior?

If I use the NIV in witnessing to my oil field worker neighbor, that is equal to behaving like a homosexual?

So you are saying all manner of dress save 1955 middle class white american is sinful?

If using modern language copies of the scripture is sinful, would that not mean the reformers were wrong to translate it into their language for the common man? So isn't the KJV wrong to use by that reasoning?

 

I love people that try and say being legalistic is ok and then they justify the 2000 "rules" saying everyone lives by rules. HAHAHAHAHA..okay my apologies for being in a weird mood and having hormones today. Anyway there is a thing as living by rules and then going way overboard. I love the Lord I have a relationship with Him, however I dont think I should have to justify what I wear or how I wear my hair or even what version of the bible I should use. I love the Lord I attend church, teach my children how much the Lord loves us the rest of the "rules" then happen or dont happen as God wills. JMHO

 

Citing Deut. 22:5 as a Biblical principle, concering the distinction to be made, is not "legalism."

Citing Ex. 28:42, which refers to specific garments for priests, and using that verse to argue against "women wearing pants" is "legalism."

Are you with me so far?

An inability to distinguish women's button-up style tops and slacks, at least most of them that I have ever seen, and the KEY® and Dickies® brands of work clothes that I normally wear, considering that I'm a farmer, is a good reason to suggest spending some considerable time with an eye-doctor, be they either a physical or a spiritual eye doctor, as the case may be.

BTW, I suggest that Ex. 28:42 is a good Biblical reason for everyone wearing 'trousers' (NKJV), or for all Baptists, anyway, since all believers are priests. (Rev. 1:6; 5:10) (BTW, the NKJV is the most 'Baptist' of all Bibles, even moreso that is the HCSB.) And since we are all now priests, in the dispensation of grace, we should all be wearing priest's attire!

Ed

 

I've always admired sheep who can straighten out a shepherdraying:

Knowing the facts of manhood is not advanced theology.

So you're sorry my hang-up is my wife and think every Jezebel should be my hang-up also? I'm not hung-up on any Jezebel, I've learned to stick close to my wife when they approach. She can give a very threatening glare.

BTW, I did notice you like to see things through as with blinders on.

 

And you sound like the victim of all the "isms".

Attire and sensuality go with one another when desire is revealed contrary to godliness.

Attire and godliness go together when God is desired and is then revealed by the wish to not be sensual to a general audience.

 

Accept him for what purpose? To compromise with his weakness or to strengthen his faith?

Strengthen his faith!

Sounds like 20 x two by four vision to me!

The reason she never had children was her perversion of judgement.

David's dance was as a young lamb who frolicked in the pasture filled with zeal and excitement. This is a perfect example against the sensual way most like to dance.

David was rejoicing over the return of the Ark of the Covenant, not performing before an audience or exhibiting his bodily reaction to music.

Perversion of judgement makes the same mistakes you have just verbalized.

 

They only come the BIBLE way or do not come to Him at all.:godisgood:

 

You understand very little to think that.

If that's your desire may God help you!

So far you are the only one seting a timeline.

You preconceive many things without making use of sound reason.

 

Overboard? Going overboard requires a definite action that either represents loss of control or intentional throwing onesself over.

Standards are to incite self-control. I would have to say then that they are guidelines and not mandates. Mandates would make it legalism, but then high standards are preventative measures.

 

Totally off topic comment deleted

 

Okay, enough one sided barrage posting.

 

Thread reopened after an explanation by the poster.

 

A lot of sense in this statement, especially if even our guidelines are Bible based. Otherwise they are nothing more than opinions.

There is a catch all phrase for non-Bible based guidelines -"Abstain from all appearance of evil." Those who use "abstain from all appearance of evil" for this purpose err in two ways, IMHO.

One, the idea in the verse is that we abstain every time evil appears.

Secondly, even if this meant to "abstain every time anything that appears like it might be evil appears" we cannot use our opinion of what appears to be evil as the plumb line. We would have to use Bible principles.

 

Galatians speaks about legalism and warns us not to put ourselves under the Law once again. Another word for legalism would be "Judaizer", but there are many other words used to describe legalism as well.

In this instance, some of the Jews were teaching that Christians should not only be saved by faith alone, but that it was also necessary to keep or observe the Law of Moses in order to be saved which equates to faith + good works.

 

Legit question?? I don't Think so!

FTR, I have absolutely no intention of ' "answering" any "'so-called' question" " '

about something that is, in no way, germane to anything I posted in this, now re-opened, thread.

Not to mention the implied aspersions cast, by the question.

Ed

 

On the lava lava. It is like the early missionaries insisting that the Hawaiians put on wool clothing in the winter. You know how terrible those winters are in Hawaii, right?

 

Asking some one for clarification to a comment made that we all should be wearing robes is not an asperation.:laugh:

 

Good, life is a learning experience.

That is definitely the wrong conclusion. I have seen many who dogmatically hold to a strict standard of dress who previously "attacked" anyone who came into their church fro not dressin "appropiately" grow into very hospitable Christians after losing their own children due to that hateful attitude.

An erroneous judgement call if I have ever seen one!

Describe to us what happens when this flies up during a sudden wind?

Seems more of a compromise to the standard of the natives than adherence to modest apparel.

I would have to conlcude that wearing a lava lava would be subjecting to the leaglist attitude of the native culture and embarrassing if the wind hit just right for me and them!:laugh:

That which is hidden under the lava lava would best be hidden by my pants.:sleeping_2:

Some good friends of mine were missionaries to US Somoa, the Shifletts. The natives tried to sone their children to death and they had to run for protection of the US Consulate. Talking about the hidden dangers opf legalism!