The hidden danger of legalism

[Salamander]

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.

If we were to make a study of the character of Job we'd find his "opinion "to be Bible based and a definite "thorn in the side" to satan.

Define "prudence" and then understand the subtility introduced by the Beatles "Dear Prudence" ( won'tcha come out to play)

When prudence is lay aside, sin lieth at the door. Just ask Cain, he knows full well.:tear:

 

[Salamander]

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.

Exactly! and all other misinterpretations are just that, misinterpretations.:godisgood:

 

[EdSutton]

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

I said nothing about wearing robes, so there was and is nothing to comment on about wearing such. Nor did I say anything about "asperations", but mentioned the "casting of aspersions" in a later post. (Language Cop says dig out your 'Webster's' to note the difference between "asperations" and "aspersions"!):thumbs:

What I did say ( and of course, you knew exactly what I said, and there was nothing that needed any clarification about it) was an example of 'legalism', -

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

and I went on to say that

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!

Which part is that, again, with which you needed explanation??- is it the priesthood of all believers" or that "the NKJV is the most 'Baptist' of all translations," for you did not make that part clear??

Actually, lately I find that I sometimes experience a goodly amount of illness and exhaustion on some threads on the Baptist Board, not to mention a large amount of exasperation, as well. (Language Cop says you now have 3 words you can look up!)

I get sick and tired of people reading things into Scripture, via eisegesis, that simply are not to be found there. The bi-monthly posts, on average, that argue against 'women wearing pants' is one example. I mentioned the Biblical principle that women are not to wear men's attire. I also noted that most women's styles of anything, including slacks (and certainly skirts and dresses), would not likely be confused with men's work pants of the style I wear, anyway, and I have yet to see many women who wear any pants and shirts such as I wear, on any normal basis. And I usually have no trouble differentiating between men's attire, and women who wear dresses, skirts, slacks and most 'tops' (The absence of a beard or five o'clock 'shadow', is usually a dead giveaway!), with the possible exception of 'Levi style jeans' which I do not wear at all, nor does my bride usually wear womwn's jeans, except when doing some yard work, sometimes, here at home. It has nothing to do with any 'religious beliefs' as to why neither of us normally wear them. I just happen to detest denim pants, and I don't care whether they are 'form fitting' or three sizes too big, and as baggy as the hobo costume Red Skelton used to wear in some of his skits. Denim material is an asperation to me, and that is sufficient reason not to wear it, IMO.

(Language Cop says if you cannot find all the words, you are hunting, in 'Webster's', try your Funk & Wagnalls!)

Ya' know, Language Cop is making a lot of sense, today!

Ed

 

[Goldie]

There are two kinds of hypocrites

One fellow does not have it and says he does; the other fellow has it but does not say he has it.

 

[EdSutton]

One fellow does not have it and says he does; the other fellow has it but does not say he has it.

Would you mind expanding on this, please? It does sounds like a good "ditty', at first read, however.

Ed

 

[Salamander]

I said nothing about wearing robes, so there was and is nothing to comment on about wearing such. Nor did I say anything about "asperations", but mentioned the "casting of aspersions" in a later post. (Language Cop says dig out your 'Webster's' to note the difference between "asperations" and "aspersions"!):thumbs:

What I did say ( and of course, you knew exactly what I said, and there was nothing that needed any clarification about it) was an example of 'legalism', - and I went on to say thatWhich part is that, again, with which you needed explanation??- is it the priesthood of all believers" or that "the NKJV is the most 'Baptist' of all translations," for you did not make that part clear??

Actually, lately I find that I sometimes experience a goodly amount of illness and exhaustion on some threads on the Baptist Board, not to mention a large amount of exasperation, as well. (Language Cop says you now have 3 words you can look up!)

I get sick and tired of people reading things into Scripture, via eisegesis, that simply are not to be found there. The bi-monthly posts, on average, that argue against 'women wearing pants' is one example. I mentioned the Biblical principle that women are not to wear men's attire. I also noted that most women's styles of anything, including slacks (and certainly skirts and dresses), would not likely be confused with men's work pants of the style I wear, anyway, and I have yet to see many women who wear any pants and shirts such as I wear, on any normal basis. And I usually have no trouble differentiating between men's attire, and women who wear dresses, skirts, slacks and most 'tops' (The absence of a beard or five o'clock 'shadow', is usually a dead giveaway!), with the possible exception of 'Levi style jeans' which I do not wear at all, nor does my bride usually wear womwn's jeans, except when doing some yard work, sometimes, here at home. It has nothing to do with any 'religious beliefs' as to why neither of us normally wear them. I just happen to detest denim pants, and I don't care whether they are 'form fitting' or three sizes too big, and as baggy as the hobo costume Red Skelton used to wear in some of his skits. Denim material is an asperation to me, and that is sufficient reason not to wear it, IMO.

(Language Cop says if you cannot find all the words, you are hunting, in 'Webster's', try your Funk & Wagnalls!)

Ya' know, Language Cop is making a lot of sense, today!

Ed

Yadda yada yadda.
You define legalism by your own ideals when women are not ever referred to as priests.

Now if the "language" cop defined "priestess" he might see a gender difference.

You approach things within your ideal of a legal aspersion of your own making; that is LEGALISM!

 

[Salamander]

Question #1 Does God set a distinction between the genders?

Now the expected answer requires #2 When did God bow down to the styles of men dictated by society?

# 3 Could it be some one is misinterpreting the Scripture where God sets the distinctive differences to separate the two as to maintain clarity and avoid confusion? 1. Yes 2. Never 3. Yes, obviously.

 

[EdSutton]

Yadda yada yadda.

Commenting on your own posts in advance, again, I see.

You define legalism by your own ideals when women are not ever referred to as priests.

4 John, to the seven churches which are in Asia:

Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.
To Him who loved us and washed[a] us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings[b] and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (Rev. 1:4-7 - NKJV)

9 And they sang a new song, saying:
“ You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us[a] kings[b] and priests to our God;
And we[c] shall reign on the earth.” (Rev. 5:9-10 - NKJV)

It seems the Bible differs with you, as to whether or not women are referred to as priests. (Or do you not see any women as being among those who have been among those whom "God loved", "washed from their sins", and are among "the redeemed" and who shall reign on the earth?) My own ideals, be they good or bad, have nothing to do with the Biblical claim, here.

Now if the "language" cop defined "priestess" he might see a gender difference.

Since the Bible in no way mentions us becoming "priestesses" or "queens", why should Language Cop have to offer a definition that is irrelevant, here?

You approach things within your ideal of a legal aspersion of your own making; that is LEGALISM!

I am not the one who is making any charges directly or implied that pants are the Biblical standard for men, and 'dresses' are the Biblical standard for women, or the one who has misinterpreted Ex. 38:42, by taking it completely out of context, either on these pages. That has been done by others, however, in the past. I am not being 'legalistic' by agreeing that Deut. 22:5 presents a valid Biblical principle of differentiation in dress. I just refuse to let someone define a Biblical principle by referring to their own personal preferences, including the sly inference about "the cleaning lady's" attire, and the sly remark you made about another individual's choice of a Bible version, both of which are fine for your own personal preference, but both of which have absolutely zero to do with the Bible's stated standards.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Salamander's questions with his suppled answers -

Question #1 Does God set a distinction between the genders? [1. Yes ]

In many, and perhaps even in most things, yes; in everything, no.

27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:27-28 - NKJV)

This distinction, does not extend to the Body of Christ, in making a distinction between the gender of individuals, as members of the body. Is there a distinction between genders for the 'offices' in the body? Absolutely.
Is there a distinction between genders for the spiritual gifts given? Nope!

3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. 4 For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, 5 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: (Rom. 12:3-6a - NKJV)

11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.
12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into[c] one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many. (I Cor.12:11-14 - NKJV)

Now the expected answer requires #2 When did God bow down to the styles of men dictated by society? [2. Never]

We actually agree on this, if you are being consistent, here. I have never come close to saying that God ever 'bows to the styles of men dictated by society.' However, by the same token, I am not interested in bowing to some artificial distinction made, by misguided Christians who seek to 'legislate' where the Holy Spirit didn't who purport to speak where Scripture is silent, either.

Oh wait, I'm sorry. I forgot for a moment that you would not accept that the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost are two different renderings for the same person, if you are consistent, since the KJV (well, the 1769 redo, anyway) tells us we are to ask for "the Holy Spirit" (Lk. 11:13), but "the Holy Ghost" was given, with no record of anyone having to ask for it (Jn. 7:39), and one can 'vex the Holy Spirit' (Isa. 63:10) and "grieve the Holy Spirit" (Eph. 4:30) but, by contrast, one can "lie to the Holy Ghost" (Ac. 5:3) and "resist the Holy Ghost" (Ac. 7:51). What utter nonsense! But that is a position that would be consistent for someone who is a KJVO, and also leads to your third question.

# 3 Could it be some one is misinterpreting the Scripture where God sets the distinctive differences to separate the two as to maintain clarity and avoid confusion? [3. Yes, obviously.]

I suggest I suffer little confusion about gender, as a rule, or distinguishing between them, out here on the farm, although I have been known to question what gender(s) is/are present when some individuals have been known to have ridden in my cab, in the past. I also suggest it is misinterpreting Scripture to impose some supposed 'cultural norm' from a century ago, onto today's culture, and proclaim this imported cultural norm to be the Biblical norm, as well - case in point, women, when wearing modest 'feminine' style pants, are no less 'modestly attired' than are women wearing 'modest' dresses or skirts. And I assure you, in 40+ years of adult life, I have seen far more than enough 'immodest' clothing, of varying styles, worn by both men and women, to be able to tell the difference.

Ed

 

[nodak]

EdSutton--you and I butt heads sometimes, but on this thread you are right on! Preach it, brother!

 

[Salamander]

Commenting on your own posts in advance, again, I see. It seems the Bible differs with you, as to whether or not women are referred to as priests. (Or do you not see any women as being among those who have been among those whom "God loved", "washed from their sins", and are among "the redeemed" and who shall reign on the earth?) My own ideals, be they good or bad, have nothing to do with the Biblical claim, here.
Since the Bible in no way mentions us becoming "priestesses" or "queens", why should Language Cop have to offer a definition that is irrelevant, here?I am not the one who is making any charges directly or implied that pants are the Biblical standard for men, and 'dresses' are the Biblical standard for women, or the one who has misinterpreted Ex. 38:42, by taking it completely out of context, either on these pages. That has been done by others, however, in the past. I am not being 'legalistic' by agreeing that Deut. 22:5 presents a valid Biblical principle of differentiation in dress. I just refuse to let someone define a Biblical principle by referring to their own personal preferences, including the sly inference about "the cleaning lady's" attire, and the sly remark you made about another individual's choice of a Bible version, both of which are fine for your own personal preference, but both of which have absolutely zero to do with the Bible's stated standards.

Ed

See you're still splitting hairs. History rpoves otherwise about your claim on pants. Maybe we'll see you one day agruing with the figure on the sign of the bathroom door which has "Women"/ "Ladies" with the little icon of a woman in a dress and NOT in slacks!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ?

Can you shows us just ONE example of a female priest, just ONE?

 

[Salamander]

Salamander's questions with his suppled answers - In many, and perhaps even in most things, yes; in everything, no. This distinction, does not extend to the Body of Christ, in making a distinction between the gender of individuals, as members of the body. Is there a distinction between genders for the 'offices' in the body? Absolutely.

Exactly!

Is there a distinction between genders for the spiritual gifts given? Nope! We actually agree on this, if you are being consistent, here. I have never come close to saying that God ever 'bows to the styles of men dictated by society.' However, by the same token, I am not interested in bowing to some artificial distinction made, by misguided Christians who seek to 'legislate' where the Holy Spirit didn't who purport to speak where Scripture is silent, either.

Who is legislating where the Holy Ghost already established the differences in gender? I am only obeying that which is right and not looking for the concocted loopholes attempting to deny what is plain and simple that evn a child can see.

Oh wait, I'm sorry. I forgot for a moment that you would not accept that the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost are two different renderings for the same person, if you are consistent, since the KJV (well, the 1769 redo, anyway) tells us we are to ask for "the Holy Spirit" (Lk. 11:13), but "the Holy Ghost" was given, with no record of anyone having to ask for it (Jn. 7:39), and one can 'vex the Holy Spirit' (Isa. 63:10) and "grieve the Holy Spirit" (Eph. 4:30) but, by contrast, one can "lie to the Holy Ghost" (Ac. 5:3) and "resist the Holy Ghost" (Ac. 7:51). What utter nonsense! But that is a position that would be consistent for someone who is a KJVO, and also leads to your third question.

I see you are suffering another one of your mind spasms and jumped totally into another subject.

I suggest I suffer little confusion about gender, as a rule, or distinguishing between them, out here on the farm, although I have been known to question what gender(s) is/are present when some individuals have been known to have ridden in my cab, in the past. I also suggest it is misinterpreting Scripture to impose some supposed 'cultural norm' from a century ago, onto today's culture, and proclaim this imported cultural norm to be the Biblical norm, as well - case in point, women, when wearing modest 'feminine' style pants, are no less 'modestly attired' than are women wearing 'modest' dresses or skirts. And I assure you, in 40+ years of adult life, I have seen far more than enough 'immodest' clothing, of varying styles, worn by both men and women, to be able to tell the difference.

Ed

So now you think the word of God should be changed to fit cultural changes even if they can be seen as abnormalities!:laugh:

You like John Gill I presume so maybe you should check his resource on the subject of pants on women?

 

[Salamander]

EdSutton--you and I butt heads sometimes, but on this thread you are right on! Preach it, brother!

Ed is "right on" but yall foregt, God is RIGHT!:godisgood:

Keep rationalizing the word of God and see where Lot ended up.:tear:



:godisgood:

 

[nodak]

Except, salamander, that the Bible does NOT teach pants are for men and skirts or dresses are for women. (As to priests told to wear "britches" or "breeches" a more accurate translation is UNDERWEAR.)

If you are dressing Biblically I assume you look like you are ready for a toga party!

Now, I agree with you the Bible does teach gender specific clothing, hair, etc as a principle. I would say ignoring that principle is PART (but only part) of the problems some folks have with gender identity. It is hard to identify with a unisex mess.

However, just as I don't think anyone with half one eye working would have trouble telling my jeans skirt I wore to church yesterday from a man's scottish kilt, I don't think anyone would mistake my jeans and tops on the clothes line for my husband's.

They are gender specific.

But what makes them gender specific is a matter of culture. I've read the Holy Book stem to stern and never did find it saying men can't wear pink. But around here, is will sure get one called "sissyboy" no matter how many the stores ship out to us. Culture. Pure and simple.

 

[sag38]

Yes, some are confusing culture with the Bible. If the breeches thing is the best they can do to validate their "women in dresses only" argument then they are hard pressed to convince many people. Anyone with a little Biblical discernment can see the fallacy of that argument.

 

[EdSutton]

Keep rationalizing the word of God and see where Lot ended up.:tear:

I have no intention of rationalizing the Word of God, but I can speak for no other, on this.

But I'll comment on another question you brought up.

Where exactly did Lot end up? (And why the 'tear' smilie?)

According to my Bible, "where Lot ended up", is being the one whom the Bible presents as the one I call "the Biblical 'Saint of Saints'," according to Scripture's own declaration.

To my knowledge, Lot is one of only two 'mortal men' specifically called "just" or "righteous" three times in the Word of God (with the other one being Abel). (I have been told that there is, also, a third individual about whom this is said, as well, FTR.) Both Abraham and the LORD also allude to him as being righteous, in addition to this, and Lot is the only individual in the Bible specifically identified as being among "the godly".

I'd say that is a pretty good place to "end up."

Ed

 

[Amy.G]

Except, salamander, that the Bible does NOT teach pants are for men and skirts or dresses are for women. (As to priests told to wear "britches" or "breeches" a more accurate translation is UNDERWEAR.)

Let's not be so hard on Sal. He's only trying to teach us women not to wear men's underwear.

:laugh:

:tonofbricks:

 

[EdSutton]

Can you shows (sic) us just ONE example of a female priest, just ONE?

I'll try just "ONE" more time, in this. {Sigh!}

In English versions: {Sigh, again!} Rev.1:6a -

And made vs kynges and priestes vnto God his father, (WYC)
and made vs kinges and Prestes vnto God his father (TNT)

And made vs kynges and priestes vnto God his father, (Bishop's)

And made vs Kings and Priests vnto God euen his Father, (GENEVA)

And hath made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father. (D/R)

And hath made vs Kings and Priests vnto God and his Father: (KJV-1611)

who hath made us kings and priests to his God and father; (Mace)

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; (KJV- 'Blaney' 1769)

and hath made us kings and priests unto his God and Father, (Wesley)

and did make us kings and priests to his God and Father, (YLT)

and made [SIZE=-1]F6[/SIZE] us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father: (DARBY)

and he made us [to be] a kingdom, [to be] priests unto his God and Father; (ASV)

and He has made us to be a kingdom, R20 priests R20 to His R21 F5 God and Father (NASB)

and has made us kings F2 and priests to His God and Father (NKJV)

and made us a kingdom,F11 priestsF12 to His God and Father (HCSB)

Who made us a Kingdom, Priests for his Father, (MSG)

and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father; (WEB)

The church, the body of Christ, has already been made kings (or a kingdom) and/of priests. Every version in English I checked testifies to this for over six and a quarter centuries, from Wycliffe's 1382 through today. From the Bibles that cost Wycliffe and Tyndale their lives, through the official Bibles of the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, the Bishop's, Douai, and KJV, to the most 'Baptist' of Bibles, the SBC's HCSB, and the NKJV. All of them effectively read the same, here. Even the most intentional paraphrase, the MSG, says the same thing.

And Rev. 5:10 says almost the exact same thing, in every version I checked, as well - here are a few of them-

and haste made vs vnto oure god kynges and prestes and we shall raygne on the erth. (TNT)

And hast made vs vnto our God Kings and Priests, and we shall reigne on the earth. (GENEVA)

And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (KJV- 1769)

And have made us F29 kings F30 and priests to our God;
And we F31 shall reign on the earth. (NKJV)

and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth. (ESV)

You made them a kingdomF70 and priests to our God,R36
and they will reign on the earth. (HCSB)

- We (all) have (already) been made (past or 'perfect' tense) priests. And those priests include all the sisters in the body of Christ, as well as the brothers! I cannot show you "just ONE example" as you asked for, but I can show you the Bible's declaration of all, here.

If the above is not to be found in your Bible, or Bibles I really do wonder what sort of weird version(s) you are actually using?

And I suggest my question gives a real reason for :tear:.

Ed

 

[Salamander]

I'll try just "ONE" more time, in this. {Sigh!}

In English versions: {Sigh, again!} Rev.1:6a - The church, the body of Christ, has already been made kings (or a kingdom) and/of priests. Every version in English I checked testifies to this for over six and a quarter centuries, from Wycliffe's 1382 through today. From the Bibles that cost Wycliffe and Tyndale their lives, through the official Bibles of the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, the Bishop's, Douai, and KJV, to the most 'Baptist' of Bibles, the SBC's HCSB, and the NKJV. All of them effectively read the same, here. Even the most intentional paraphrase, the MSG, says the same thing.

And Rev. 5:10 says almost the exact same thing, in every version I checked, as well - here are a few of them- - We (all) have (already) been made (past or 'perfect' tense) priests. And those priests include all the sisters in the body of Christ, as well as the brothers! I cannot show you "just ONE example" as you asked for, but I can show you the Bible's declaration of all, here.

If the above is not to be found in your Bible, or Bibles I really do wonder what sort of weird version(s) you are actually using?

And I suggest my question gives a real reason for :tear:.

Ed

Nice generalization there, but name one we find in the Bible where "she" is specifically named as a priest!:laugh:

You can't. You haven't either. And you never will.

 

[Don]

Can someone provide the Reader's Digest condensed version of this thread?