Grace Robbery

Your question is difficult to answer. The reason is that you present some vague conclusions without evidence in order to set up an accusation that offers no explanative reasoning. You also make an accusation against those you appear to oppose that they offer no authority or support for the vague claims you say they make. And yet you have offered no support yourself that their claims are without scriptual authority.

In Galatians 2:4 the context is those who were let into the church who are unbelievers ("false bretheren") who insisted that circumcision was necessary for salvation. Your scriptual authority for your incomplete argument is flawed because of the lack of argument, the lack of support for your incomplete argument and you have taken the passage you offered for your support for your incomplete argument out of context. Are you really trying to accuse those you disagree with here as being lost as the passage you used for support indicates?

The liberty addressed in this passage has to do with liberty from the law with regards to salvation. While your intended argument may have some merrit this passage has been taken out of context in order to support your argument. Unless you perceive that those you are criticizing require the littany you posed as a necessity for salvation thus making them lost and without Christ.

 

Then I will accept your explanation and apologize for my assumption.

When you make an attempt to apply a verse that is in the context of "false bretheren" or lost people trying to make themsleves appear as the other (saved) then that can reasonably be understood as doubting the salvation of those who make the "rules" you listed. I did not understand that you would interpret this passage in any other way. My motivation was not to make you appear to be doing what I knew you were not.

I look forward to your response.

The two ideas are not related. The first (as you are aware) is related to the primary issue of salvation i.e. "what kind of repsonse does God require of me in order to be justified or found not guilty of my sin. What ever one's view is on this will determine their eternity.

The second idea is related to secondary issues i.e. the littany you posed. And being wrong on these issue will still leave one justifed by the blood of Christ. So the passage you gave as support (being under the premise of the first) cannot also support the second.

No. I understood the list very clearly. The concern I have for the list is that you draw a conclusion that the list is incorrect without offering support for the individual items in the list. Even if the Galatians passage did support the main premise of your concerns you failed to get to it by not supporting that the individual items in the list with scripture as being in error.

This question appears quite accusatory. The reason is the accusation appears to be that you believe that those who support limits on items in your list are knowingly imposing those items on everyone when they know there is no scriptual support.

Wouldn't a better question be " Do they really have support for their views on Holy living? This way you can still make your point , incite discussion, and assume the best of those with differing opinions. (But I could be wrong)

 

Truthfully there isn't a one of us who hasn't including myself. My suggestion was not to point out an error in you where I do not (for that would be untrue) but to have a better discussion that actually gets to the heart of the matter. Because I believe that your intended discussion does have merrit even though I may not agree with your entire list. I am looking forward to further discussion whne you have completed your re-evaluation. God Bless

 

I agree

I agree with RevMitchell...the real heart of the matter is whether or not there is Scriptural support for a particular standard.

If there isn't Scriptural support, then perhaps that standard should remain between that Christian and the Lord, as a matter of personal faith and conviction.

Rev. 13:13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
1 ¶ Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

 

Are any of the things listed here in the list in the op?

 

So true. After their clarifications to my questions, I'm assuming that the devils with whom C4K and his friends have been interacting abide on other boards.

 

There's a Christian nudist church somewhere in Virginia, or North Carolina.
Saw them featured in a cable show, one night.
I mean, they go to church in their birthday suits.
I guess I'll try them out one day.
After all, they be brethren because they also say they're "saved by grace through faith", right ?
But I won't bring my wife with me, she's all for "straight and starched" worship, you know.
Heck, she'd make sure she cut my hair just above the collar line, or else...

Hey, don't get me wrong, folks.
Y'all can go to church dressed any which way you want and never mind those around you, and y'all can go roll the drums and beat them as hard as you want, and shout to the Lord and all that, and call it worship if you will, that's fine with me here, so long as the church I go to don't do that, and if they do then I' ll leave them be and find me another church which is what Ingrid over at the other thread shoulda done.

But, still, that nudist Christian church....
You know, ya'll have a point...
yeah, think I'll look them up and try them on for size....
after all, it's all of grace, right ?

 

But, Roger, how can that be sin ?
Or even licentiousness ?
They don't go on an orgy before, during or after their services.
They of that church say that they come to the church to praise and honor God, and that God does not mind how man looks or dresses, because he's looking at the heart where it matters most.
And they were holding services when they were interviewed.
Of course, the hypocrites in media blurred the body parts where they would allow children to see the Abercrombie & Fitch advertisings on tv, or their absolutely licentious and sex-filled "reality" shows .

Music-wise, though, I understand they're as conservative as most of the "suit and tie" legalistic non-brethren around here, though.

 

Amen

Amen, LOL!

 

It is evident that we mostly agree, but I want to point out for the record that I mentioned such a question as an analogy: husband/wife = Christian/God. I did not mention it as an actual example of Christian misbehavior. As an analogy, it illustrates why a Christian might think it wrong to do things, even if those things aren't expressly forbidden in Scripture.

You said we shouldn't err, but should just get it right. I felt like I qualified as much as anybody, so I volunteered.

Duly noted and greatly appreciated.

 

Years ago my brother in law who was not a Christian at the time attended a church and could not understand why he saw such legalism among the people. I asked him to tell me what he knew about the people. Everyone of them fit the same profile. Their lives were controlled by fear of the unknown and not guided by the Holy Spirit. They responded to a strong controlling leader who gave them a set of rigid guidelines that gave them a false sense of security and guidance. In a sense they were fearful and looked to someone else to guide them.

 

No disrespect intended, but I wouldn't ask anyone outside my family who would not be able to understand the "idiosyncracies", if you will, of my family to tell me why he thinks my family is "dysfunctional" and divided.

I would ask someone within the family ties or lines.

 

I did not give you the entire scenario. The preacher was a person who had not studied the Bible much, but rather gave his "Holy Spirit led" interpretation and was somewhat of a control freak and a junior holy spirit. At the time my brother in law and I were talking in his patrol car about Christ. Previously he had decided to attend a church. So he asked me about a passage and what it said. Then, I realized the preacher had preached on that passage on Sunday. To him it seemed as though the preacher could not interpret scripture correctly and he also observed some rather interesting people "cut of the same cloth." First of all, I had studied the passage we were talking about and the preacher was a mile off. Secondly, my brother in law was correct about the interpretation of the passage. A few weeks later he went to another church and later spoke with the pastor. That pastor met with him and led my brother in law to Christ.

Let me asssure you it was a church full of the same kind of dysfunctional people led by a control freak full of his brand of a holy spirit.

 

Thanks for the clarification.
Yes, I agree there are pastors who are "control freaks".
Have had personal experiences with these types.
We once had such a pastor in the Philippines do his visitation at our home and it happened to be my wife's birthday and he scolded my wife for having had her hair cut short (on her birthday !) in front of me.

I told him to his face he can count on us not coming to his church anymore in a not so very Christian tone.

Then there's the reverse. The pastor who will not impose control where control is absolutely needed.

My sister (a full gospel member) was so "on fire" for service for the Lord that she was out of the house Monday to Friday beginning at 7 in the morning till 10 in the evening distributing tracts, leading "Bible studies", "witnessing and winning souls", that she neglected her family altogether.

She would cook the meals for her kids for the entire day, leave their allowances on the table, and out of the house she goes.

Of course, her kids appeared malnourished.

And this while her husband, a worker in Saudi Arabia, regulaly sent her dollars home which could have been more than enough for all their needs, plus.

So everytime he comes home, he would hear his kids talk, and he sees they have very little savings for the day when his contract no longer renews.

So, she has never been able to take him to church with her.

His reason ? He says if being a Christian requires I do not take care of my children like I should, then, no, thanks, I do not want to be a Christian.

Eventually, he converted to Islam, married a second wife in Saudi Arabia, and (I don't know if this is true) became a Saudia.

I think her pastor should have exerted more control in that area of my sister's life and taught her how to balance her service for the Lord with the needs of her family.

 

Outstanding descriptive phrase.

Second only to "grace robbers" this week! :thumbs:

Ed