The hidden danger of legalism

You did not ask for names, before and I answered the question, Biblically.

You cannot find where a particularly named man in the Body of Christ is specifically named as a priest, either, but that does not invalidate the principle, or the verses cited.

Ed

 

:laugh:

As I was trying to say before - and was then "brutally interrupted" by work - legalism = hypocrisy. Hypocrisy = legalism.

Salamander? (If I've got the name of the person correct who asked if there were any woman priests mentioned in the Bible)

There aren't any, although there are one or two female prophets mentioned in the OT, but this is solely because of judgment - when men don't want to stand up and do God's work, He appoints women to do the job - and it's seen as a judgment on those unwilling men.

 

Isn't there at least one female deacon mentioned in the New Testament, too?

I'm trying to understand the back-and-forth between Salamander and Ed Sutton. If I understand EdSutton correctly, he's inferring that Salamander is saying women should sit down, shut up, and speak only when spoken to; if I understand Salamander correctly, he's inferring that EdSutton is saying women should be free to cut their hair, jump up and down on the pastor's podium, and burn their bras.

(perhaps a bit too harsh in my interpretations, but I'm going for laughs instead of facts)

So what's the actual hidden danger(s) of legalism?

 

Phoebe is actually called a deaconess (AMP, RSV, LAM; mg. NIV, HCSB, ESV; and note commentaries of JFB, WES, & PNT, as well, all of which get this right, by the language) in Rom. 16:1. I'll allow that there may, in fact, be such an 'office' 'permitted', based on Rom. 16:1 and I Tim. 3:11.

However, I still make full differentiation between "deaconess" and "deacon", and teach there to be no such thing as any "woman deacon" in Scripture, because there is no such thing as any "woman" who can be 'the husband of a wife' (I Tim. 3:12a), the Mass. Supreme Court ruling, and VT and CA, among other states, laws notwithstanding.

However, EdSutton is not "inferring" anything (aside from making a comment about "ONLY-ism"), or even attempting to guess what Salamander is saying, at all, let alone attempting to put any words into his mouth, but merely replying to what he has actually said, vs. the statements of Scripture.

What Salamander may be inferring that EdSutton is saying, is something you will have to ask him, I guess.

Oh, BTW, - [FONT=verdana,sans-serif]

(Just trying to help out with the laughs!) :smilewinkgrin:

In short, the 'danger' of legalism is well summarized by stilllearning in post # 124, I think. However, I do not consider this danger to be "hidden", at all, as it openly stifles Christian growth, IMO.

Ed
[/FONT]

 

Don't forget the women prophetesses in the NT church...

 

Why, so you can read all the filth that comes in them?

 

Really now!??! So your "bible" doesn't have the name of Jesus in it???!!!???:laugh: Seems we have a high Priest which can be touched with the feelings of our infirmities but by your reply you don't?

 

Glad somebody actually reads their Bible and BELIEVES it!:thumbs:

 

Bondage to the law instead of Liberty in Christ.

And be careful not to bite down with the tongue in your cheek, it hurts really bad.

 

Nice, but too general.

 

Nice of you to add nothing to the discussion, again.

 

??? Sorry, not sure what you're reading into my comments that caused you to respond in this way. Would you please explain your response, and the manner in which it seems to have been delivered?

While I like StillLearning's answer for its specificity, your answer is the guideline that should be used for determining the difference between legalism and preaching scripture.

For example, StillLearning stated that a pastor who tells his congregation that women shouldn't wear pants is a legalistic pastor; I would humbly submit that this is absolutely correct, and not general at all; in fact, perhaps it would be too specific.

I would offer the counter-example that a pastor who teaches that the Bible states men should wear that which pertaineth to a man, and the same for women, and leaves it there (as opposed to one pastor I personally heard say, "no woman in my church will wear pants"), is a "liberal" Christian; i.e., one who states the teaching of the Bible, but leaves it to the working of the Holy Spirit and the individual's liberty in Christ.

Maybe we need a definition that doesn't identify certain specific acts, but explains more/better what Salamander has put forth?

 

You asked for the RD version. Have you looked at a RD lately?

Yes, the Bible is the answer to all life's questions when it comes to establishing the way of lge and principle.

Nope, although many try to explain away Duet 22:5 the pants still are preistly battle garments and are men's apparel.

I agree it's all the working of God or it is conforming to a standard just because a preacher says so. That is not legalism but the effort to try and fit in.

I'm trying to allow divine reason to intervene while those who subject others to irrational thinking to be exposed.

 

Actually, no, I haven't; it used to be a decent read, compared to the mounds of pornographic publications available at the grocery checkout. What's changed? Or perhaps I should go find a copy and see for myself....

Sorry; what's "Ige"? I'm assuming a typo, but can't figure out what you were trying to type.

Okay, sorry to make you do this again, because I'm reasonably sure you provided the reference for the pants being priestly battle garments; but could you provide that reference again? I've always heard what you're talking about as being undergarments, so I'd appreciate the opportunity to research this some more.

There's a very, very fine (thin) line between establishing a standard and legalism. For a pastor to state that no women in his church will wear pants, using Deut 22:5 as a way to make those women question their salvation as he says this, is a legalistic stance.

Let me use another example: A pastor I personally know had a woman in bicycle shorts come into his church one Sunday. Before the service was over, she came forward and accepted the Lord as her savior. However, after the service, the pastor was approached by several people who were disappointed that he had allowed her into the church wearing the bicycle shorts, much less encouraging her to come forward to the altar. Is that an example of a congregation who is tied to "standards," or "legalism"?

Define "irrational thinking."

When we discuss what legalism is, let's use the biblical examples. Let's look at what the Pharisees were doing. Let's look at those in Acts 15, who attempted to re-introduce circumcision. Was circumcision legalistic? Yes; why? Because it rested salvation back on keeping the law of Moses.

Is salvation based on wearing that which pertaineth to a man or woman? If not, then preaching anything that says your salvation is in question because of what you're wearing is legalistic, because this saying was part of the law.

Unless I'm totally wrong, and Deut 22:5 wasn't considered part of the law. Please feel free to educate me; I try to keep a teachable spirit about these things, and wish to increase my understanding.

 

Yes really!

And likewise, you really should consider looking up some of the verses in some other version, such as the ASV, KJV-1611, RV, HCSB, KJV-1769, NKJV or some similar version, sometime.

Scripture tells us the Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of the body (Eph. 5:23 - ASV), and the head of the Body (Col. 1:18 - KJV-1769), but not that He is "in" the body, as a member. That's us, the believers, who are the individual members. (I Cor. 12:27 - NKJV) Incidentally, the reason I included the 'qualifier' in the first place, is that any priests of the order of Aaron (Heb. 7:11d - HCSB) have absolutely zero to do with Melchisekian priesthood, of which order (Heb. 7:11c - KJV-1611), the Lord Jesus Christ is our Great High Priest (Heb. 4:14 - NASB), nor does the Levitical priesthood (Heb. 7:11a - YLT) have anything to do with us who are a part of the Body of Christ (Eph. 4:12 - DARBY), because under the Levitical priesthood the people received the law (Heb. 7:11b - ESV) while we are under grace (Rom. 6:14 - GEN), which came by Jesus Christ. (Jn. 1:17 - RV)

But your response, where you seem to include the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ, in the body, of which he is the head (Col. 1:18 - MLB), as also a member, seems to me to be somewhat lacking, at best, so, coupled with a previous posting where you did not seem to understand the Bible's perspective of godly, righteous Lot (AKJV), and my own desire to help, I also decided to mention a dozen or so Bible versions you might want to consider, seeing that the ones you have seemingly been looking at, recently, appear to be a bit short in accurately conveying Scriptural truth.

I am not surprised by a lot of things, these days, but still, I just never expected anything from Salamander that appears consistent with what I might expect from one referencing the NWT or CWT versions.

And FTR, the name of Jesus appears more than one thousand times, in my Bible (How many times is it in "yours"? ), and I believe shows up four thousand times or more in my bride's electronic 'Bible', which has at least four versions, and Strong's concordance, as well. I never use hers, because my fat arthritic fingers do not allow me to use the small 'keys', very well.

And how do they manage to cram all those words and thousands of pages into something no bigger than a 3X5 card and half an inch thick, anyway?

Ed

 

Ed, I don't want to derail the thread, but I would love to know where you wife got an electronic Bible with 4 versions in it. I have one, but it is only the KJV. I haven't seen one with 4 versions. Sounds fantastic.

 

Something to do with angels on the head of a pin, maybe?

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

I think that is what she told me, but I will ask again specifically, and get back to you.

Ed