The hidden danger of legalism

[Salamander]

I should learn to differentiate between a "woman" and a "lady"?

I follow the bible so it's not my concern to define the secular term "lady".

raying: After reading some of your remarks about the humanity of Christ I didn't really expect you to respond appropiately to the reference I made to the elect Lady.

 

[Salamander]

I am continually amazed that we are so prone to take the standards of 50 years ago and consider them higher standards.

My grandma did that 50 years ago. And I bet her grandma did also.

I believe in missions--in cross cultural evangelism. I am not out to make someone 1955 white middle class american. I am out to lead them to Jesus.

So if I want to reach senior citizens I may dress conservatively, use old hymns, and the kjv.

If I want to reach my immigrant neighbors I will dress quite simply, speak spanish, and use a Spanish Bible.

If want to reach the local teens, I will use rock sounding choruses and the cev or message.

If I want to reach the corporate type or middle class soccer mom, music will be adult contemporary christian music, nasb or niv or nlt.

If I want to reach roughnecks on the rigs, I will use country gospel and the niv.

Same Jesus. Same gospel. Different "languages" so to speak.

One can be quite fundamentalist in theology without buying into fundamentalism's cultural markers.

But then I also believe in soul competency. I believe if God told you to chuck your tv you had better chuck it. But I might be using mine constructively and not receive the same marching orders.

Secular reasoning has this one fault: to continue on with the flow of your reasoning, you would have to be a sodomite to reach sodomites!

If you really ever do "reach" anyone, it will be that the Lord reached them by and through His word.

We are to be instruments in the hand of the Master, not cohorts with the world and its witty inventions.

Are we out to preserve a certain culture, or to lead the world to faith in Jesus?

No one is "out to preserve any certain culture", we are out to be used of God to reflect his working in our lives and thereby glorify our Father which is in Heaven, not compromise with the world and bow down to "reach" them.

You're not reaching anyone using the devil's devices, you're only succumbing to the enchantments of satan.

 

[Salamander]

Joe--agreed. However, those "old paths" are NOT cultural, but relationship with God.

Example: we consider pink to be a feminine culture, see a guy in a pink shirt, and gasp that he is not following the "old path". Except HE IS. Just a hundred years ago pink was a boy color, and dilute version of the manly red.

In some parts of the west, folks are very well educated in the greek and hebrew background of our Bible. So they see a guy in a three piece suit and think "there goes a guy in soft raiment--must be homosexual or he would be in manly jeans."

Some women read the text about our beauty not being the putting on of dresses, or costly array, or elaborate hairstyles. We wear our best slacks or jeans with a modest appropriate top and trot off to worship. We might see a lady all "duded up" and think how much better it would be if she exhibited a submissive spirit rather than a vain one. Or think the money spent on pantyhose would feed a family in Nigeria for a year!

Get the point? "Our" middleclass conservative USA culture of 1955 is NOT the old path blessed by God. It is just our culture. Nothing more.

If we let it be more, it becomes an idol and we have left the old paths.

Thus the real need for Bible teaching.

 

[Salamander]

Wonderful :thumbs: Our Pastor is very hung up on dress attire, as is the church women to the point most of his preaching is not biblical concerning dress attire. I never thought of dress attire as an Idol, thank you.

Obviously you do not respect your pastor the way the Bible teaches to say such that he is "hung-up" about anything.:tear:

 

[Salamander]

Perverting judgement is commonplace with the carnal.

 

[Joe]

raying: After reading some of your remarks about the humanity of Christ I didn't really expect you to respond appropiately to the reference I made to the elect Lady.

Is there a way to respond appropriately to your snide accusations?

Here is your post

I think you should learn to differentiate between a "woman" and a "lady". Or maybe you have a problem with the "elect lady"?

Again, "Lady" is a secular term I have no desire to define. Woman is biblical, so let's stick with that term.

Not to mention, your accusation made no sense and didn't seem to relate to our conversation.

The Elect lady (& her children) is a woman the Apostle Paul wrote a personal note to. She was a god fearing, steadfast lady with a great testimony. He praised her and warned her to remain steadfast in her walk with Christ, not to be deceived. There is no mention of dress attire or legalistic standards in that book. So I don't see the correlation, but maybe I missed it.


Obsessing on women's dress attire causes our imaginations to become out of control, they then take on a life of their own becoming unrecognizable. Take heed.

Then some blame everyone else for not viewing women in the same fashion. Let's stay on the straight and narrow, keep ourselves fixated on the above, not the below. Remain in the Spirit, of wholesome mind, then we don't have these problems with our imaginations running amuck.

 

[Joe]

Obviously you do not respect your pastor the way the Bible teaches to say such that he is "hung-up" about anything.:tear:

My Pastor is my friend, so please refrain from accusations.
He, along with many men who have been divorced and/or men who were brought up without both the same mother and father presnet in their life, are hung up on women's dress attire imho. They do not understand women AND men are not cookie cutter people thus make accusations which are hurtful and plain mean. I see it as anger.

Sorry, lady is biblical but only used a few times in the bible. Sometimes "Lady", imho, get's twisted to mean one becomes a lady when she wears dresses.

The Greek word for “lady” (kuria) is used only two times in the Bible, and both of these occurrences are in the one-chapter epistle of II*John. Kuria is the feminine form of kurios, which is the Greek word for “Lord.”

The second use of kuria is in verse 2 John: 5: “And now I beseech thee lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another”

We don't even know for sure if the lady in 2 John was a literal woman or if that was a metaphor. So that means we don't know if there really is a human lady to apply this term to. Regarding the difference between lady and woman, lady appears a more feminine term. But "woman" is used many more times in the bible, including righteous women, so that term appropriately applies to most "women". Jesus called his own earthly mother (Mary) "woman".

Here's a woman! Rachael

Rachael means -ewe, sheep, lamb
Genesis 1:9 And while he yet spake with them, Rachel came with her father's sheep; for she kept them.

Rachael should not be wearing a dress while tending to sheep, it would be immodest. If the wind blows, she trips or the sheep head butts her, she could fall down. She is probably more active, more adventurous, less prim & proper than other women yet she is saved none the less. Wearing a dress doesn't make a person a saved lady, nor does wearing a three piece suit make a person a saved gentleman.

 

[nodak]

salamander, I am going to treat you with dignity despite your attacks.

If you disagree with my way of presenting the gospel, take it up with 1 Corinthians 9. Take it up with Paul.

There is nothing of Satan in being culturally aware and sensitive. There is much of Satan in pride.

 

[Mexdeaf]

salamander, I am going to treat you with dignity despite your attacks.

If you disagree with my way of presenting the gospel, take it up with 1 Corinthians 9. Take it up with Paul.

There is nothing of Satan in being culturally aware and sensitive. There is much of Satan in pride.

God bless you, Brother!:thumbs:

 

[Salamander]

Is there a way to respond appropriately to your snide accusations?

Here is your post


Again, "Lady" is a secular term I have no desire to define.

Nope, any woman can be a lady if she follows the sound teaching of Scripture.

Woman is biblical, so let's stick with that term.

Not to mention, your accusation made no sense and didn't seem to relate to our conversation.

I made no accusation, just referred to the facts.

The Elect lady (& her children) is a woman the Apostle Paul wrote a personal note to. She was a god fearing, steadfast lady with a great testimony. He praised her and warned her to remain steadfast in her walk with Christ, not to be deceived. There is no mention of dress attire or legalistic standards in that book. So I don't see the correlation, but maybe I missed it.

Yep, you missed the FACT that Paul didn't write unto the Elect Lady, it was John. And it wasn't her children he referred to, it was HIS in the faith!:laugh:

Obsessing on women's dress attire causes our imaginations to become out of control, they then take on a life of their own becoming unrecognizable. Take heed. [/quote[ I would say women and designers of clothing take into account of the figure of a woman to do much more harm than to have her dressed modestly. Afterall, they know waht men want to see and then they dress according to what they already know they like. Same goes for men's clothing too.

Then some blame everyone else for not viewing women in the same fashion. Let's stay on the straight and narrow, keep ourselves fixated on the above, not the below. Remain in the Spirit, of wholesome mind, then we don't have these problems with our imaginations running amuck.

I don't have any problem seeing a very beautiful woman dressed modestly, it only becomes a matter of lust when she dresses to provoke my attention to her form, when she has one that is not likened to a 3 liter, well, maybe even a two liter.:laugh: And then it is up to me to obey the Spirit and turn my head away from her.

 

[Salamander]

My Pastor is my friend, so please refrain from accusations.
He, along with many men who have been divorced and/or men who were brought up without both the same mother and father presnet in their life, are hung up on women's dress attire imho. They do not understand women AND men are not cookie cutter people thus make accusations which are hurtful and plain mean. I see it as anger.

.

I would have to ask you to go to him with your idea that he is "hung-up" about anything and stop defamating his character.

I in no way was being "mean" and for you to say that is evidence of poor judgement.

Men are "hung-up" on women, period. I'm hung-up on my wife and every Jezebel who comes along batting her eyes, dressed provocatively needs to KNOW that!


Why? Cuz my wife is an Amazon!:laugh:

 

[Salamander]

salamander, I am going to treat you with dignity despite your attacks.

If you disagree with my way of presenting the gospel, take it up with 1 Corinthians 9. Take it up with Paul.

There is nothing of Satan in being culturally aware and sensitive. There is much of Satan in pride.

I did not attack you, just your faulty reasoning. You should consider the element of pride in your response, then speak, you migth want to re-iterate.

Paul placed himself in the same position as those he ministered to, not that he partook of their same practices.:laugh:

Better re-read I Cor 9.

I don't have to have my body covered with tattoes to be able to witness to people with tattoes. I don't have to be a cross dresser to reach cross dressers. I don't have to look muslim to reach muslims. All I have to have is the earnest desire, the word of God, and the rigth attitude of grace.

 

[Salamander]

God bless you, Brother!:thumbs:

And God blesses me without your consent!:laugh:

Reach all you can, but I have to ask, are you winning them to Christ or your charisma? Big diff y'know!

 

[Joe]

Nope, any woman can be a lady if she follows the sound teaching of Scripture. I made no accusation, just referred to the facts.

Again, there may not have been a human "Elect lady". There is no reason a woman would strive to be something God didn't intend her to be. A righteous woman works just fine.

Yep, you missed the FACT that Paul didn't write unto the Elect Lady, it was John. And it wasn't her children he referred to, it was HIS in the faith!:laugh:

Sorry I meant John but I guess I wrote Paul. I may start a new thread upon 2 John, we are world's apart.

I don't have any problem seeing a very beautiful woman dressed modestly, it only becomes a matter of lust when she dresses to provoke my attention to her form,

Um, you actually believe a woman would do that for you? I thought you were married

when she has one that is not likened to a 3 liter, well, maybe even a two liter.:laugh: And then it is up to me to obey the Spirit and turn my head away from her.

I don't know what you mean about she has one likened to a 2 liter/3 liter. In Calif, that is a container soda pop's come in but if it it's metaphor for a woman who looks good, then yes, if you are struggling, then you should turn your head. I also suggest you pray asap

 

[Salamander]

Again, there may not have been a human "Elect lady". There is no reason a woman would strive to be something God didn't intend her to be. A righteous woman works just fine.

Um, the Elect Lady refers to the church, and she is adorning the Righteousness of God.

Sorry I meant John but I guess I wrote Paul. I may start a new thread upon 2 John, we are world's apart.


Um, you actually believe a woman would do that for you? I thought you were married

You actually believe that many women don't dress to get the attention of men? naive, I'd say.

I don't know what you mean about she has one likened to a 2 liter/3 liter. In Calif, that is a container soda pop's come in but if it it's metaphor for a woman who looks good, then yes, if you are struggling, then you should turn your head. I also suggest you pray asap

I'm not struggling. I'm not that arrogant to deny my manhood. I am wise to the wiles of the devil to make women sexually atractive and sensually desirable. Why aren't you?

 

[Joe]

I would have to ask you to go to him with your idea that he is "hung-up" about anything and stop defamating his character.

No one knows my Pastor so don't worry. You are very touchy, luckily, he is not. IN fact, we are working on this problem and he has gotten much better.

Men are "hung-up" on women, period.

SO if I say my Pastor is hung up on women's attire, I am defaming his character.
Yet you say men in general (meaning ALL men, including my pastor) are hung up on women in general, the whole package, then it's alright. You are defaming no one. Interesting reasoning.

I'm hung-up on my wife and every Jezebel who comes along batting her eyes, dressed provocatively needs to KNOW that!

I am sorry to hear that. I'll pray for you, even if you were joking.

 

[Joe]

Um, the Elect Lady refers to the church, and she is adorning the Righteousness of God.

Something we can agree on, finally :thumbs:

You actually believe that many women don't dress to get the attention of men?

I never said that, so the accusation of naive is a little strange. You put it a much different way, go back and read your post.

I'd say.I'm not struggling. I'm not that arrogant to deny my manhood.

So you are saying that a man with self-control is not really a man? Btw, what is manhood? It's an interesting term which sounds more secular than biblical, it's used often to push the gay agenda here, I know that.

I am wise to the wiles of the devil to make women sexually atractive and sensually desirable. Why aren't you?

I really don't care to be bothered by that anymore.
I am too old for that now. I ride bikes with many women (and men) you would probably consider fit and good looking, and they are just friends. We have no problems whatsoever, but they exercise and eat right so their hormones aren't going bonkers at me. Try exercise if you have trouble, works for me.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Legalism places too much importance on rules making them the foundation of faith. Legalism says that morality is defined by the conformity to rules that are absolute, universal and without exception. Legalism results in people becoming rigid, arbitary, unloving and irrational.

The opposite of legalism is antinomianism which teaches that there are no absolute, objective or binding rules. This understanding can lead to moral relativism or moral license. Existentialism, nihilism, emotivism, situationism and hedonism result from antinomianism.

 

[Joe]

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters" Romans 14:1

Imho, even legalists deserve this.

Although when legalism goes so far as teaching heresay despite the fact the Preacher/Teacher knows better, then imo, they are probably not a Christian.

Wide is the path to destruction, narrow is the gate to eternal life and few will find it.

One example: Churches who preach against dancing. Some may teach dancing is sin while full well knowing David danced for the Lord (2 Samuel 6:14) and the Lord was pleased. In fact, it may be dangerous to be legalistic and criticize people serving the lord as David's wife did. She despised his dancing the for the Lord and was never able to have children after that.

 

[Mexdeaf]

And God blesses me without your consent!:laugh:

Reach all you can, but I have to ask, are you winning them to Christ or your charisma? Big diff y'know!

I am amazed that God even allows me near himself, much less that he should allow me to have a tiny part in his work. I let Him answer for me for the fruit is His regardless of how they may come to Him- humanly speaking.