Legalism

Ann, sister in Christ....I had mentioned jealousy at one point, and I got flamed BIG TIME for that. I was surprised when he brought up envy, because that was my thought...some are envious of another Christian's apparent growth - the way that a non-Christian can be envious of what we have that they don't understand. It is only negative when that non-Christian, out of envy, reacts in a malicious manner....The way some have reacted to my statements about my growth in the scripture and my convictions that have resulted.

Your sister in Christ, Debbie

 

Out of the abundance of the heat the mouth speaketh. Those words coming from the action of the mouth. I try not to speak so highly of myself as others here have. Legalism's biggest attribute is to find something and exploit it in favor of onesself and to put down another. Ann, I only mention the prostate in the effort to not get too much in detail and so others could make the connection. You and others were quick to jump the gun, your actions speak louder than you wish. Why so condescending and self congratulating?

 

You might want to read those words to yourself as you look in the mirror.

 

I consistently do. You might try your own advice? Oh, I forget, legalists don't know they are the ones imposing their "laws" on everyone else subverting the hearers by how they think. "And of some having compassion, making a difference" is just how Jude puts it. I'm sorry if my words are not palatible for some. Dcorbett has said it best and I have awakened the other pack of angry wolves. May your sojourning here start to become more pleasant very soon.

 

It is difficult for those of us who have been here a while and understand each other better, to automatically accept a newcomer who says things like what is bolded above after being here less than a month.

Perhaps if you had gotten to know some of us better before going on the attack, you might find it different here than you think.

 

I haven't named anyone and if memory serves me right , you were the one who got real rude, dude.

I find it atrocious that some one will try and vindicate themselves by bragging on how many different types of people they have fellowship with and then turn around and mock and ridicule some one whom they have just begun to know.

I haven't supplied the types of people I know, I have addressed some behavior patterns and not come right out and called names. There is a HUGE difference.

I have yet to find "it different here" than what I see already. I stand with Dcorbett in seeing how many here are quick to jump all over some one and accuse them as you have me.

I'm very sure we'll all get along a bunch better if we will just discuss things and agree we disagree and STOP going to the extent of getting personal.

Like I said, I am not "retaliating", but I will respond in showing what I already have shown.

Leagilsts go along with the topic of legalism.

Legalism causes the leaglist to think they are acting on the part of God when they are demeaning towards those with whom they disagree and get on a level of being personal about it.

I haven't told anyone their parents need to discipline them.

I will continue to stand on the facts that most people who attack those who maintain a standard are simply envious and actually hate the person for it.

I had to grow in the Lord, still plenty of room for growth, but I grew because others showed me the why about having standards from the Bible. I have also known for a very long time that others who haven't grown in the biblical way to need direction from some one who has walked with the Lord for a long time.

This doesn't go without saying that too many refuse to grow in the things of God.:type:

Can two walk together except they agree? Then to walk closer to the Lord must mean to agree with Him more!

Consider me your friend and I will return the same friendship; for the wounds of a friend are sincere

"Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful."

May there never be found any deceit in my words towards anyone here, ever.

 

I am not picking on any one individual here, for I could have responded to any of the above posters' comments. All of your comments have been outside of the definition of legalism. You are not speaking about legalism at all. It seems that you are ignorant (to put it bluntly) about legalism.

Again, legalism is about salvation. If said person is "imposing their 'laws' on everyone else..." and telling them that if they don't adhere to these laws then they are not saved, then that is legalism. I don't see that here. No one is saying that if women don't wear skirts, don't listen to the right kind of music, don't have the right hair length, etc. then they aren't saved. That is what legalism is.

The topic here is more aptly called: worldliness. How close to the world can one be comfortable with and still be comfortable with their walk with God?

Or, is it holiness? How close can a person walk to God without becoming worldly?

There is a line drawn in the sand. It goes east and west (just suppose). At the extreme north of that line is the cross. As the extreme south is the pit of the world where all the unsaved are; it is as sinful as one can get.
--Many Christians try to walk as close to that line as possible: some with one foot in the world and one foot in Christianity.
Whereas the Bible says:
Be not conformed to this world.
Be conformed to the image of Christ.

How close to the cross do you walk?
The discussion here is not about legalism.

 

Over the years on this board, I've stayed out of this type of topic and the pro and con calvinistic debates for the most part, but I'll make an exception.

You are just about as bad on this as my wife's husband, I feel sorry for you, someone needs to pray for you, so I guess I will. Anything you do different or like that is different than me, shows your ways of legalism. The person who does not like change is being legalistic and the person who wants to change isn't grounded. If you don't do it my way, something is wrong with you. Some bring things into the debate that makes you look like a fool if you answer them or not.

 

Perhaps you don't understand my point.
Read the Book of Galatians, where Paul discusses legalism.
The Judaizers were legalistic. They wanted to enforce their brand of legalism upon the Galatians by demanding that obedience to the Law and circumcision be made mandatory for salvation. That is legalism. Anything that is added to the simple plan of salvation becomes a gospel of works and legalistic in nature.

Take for example the Church of Christ. They demand that one must be baptized to be saved. If you take a good look at their constitution they demand even more than that. That is legalism as it relates to salvation.

It doesn't matter to me what kind of music you listen to. That is between you and God. Likewise the way you dress--the standard that you set for yourself--that is between you and God. The other matters being discussed here are all between you and God. These are not matters of legalism. Read through the thread. Aaron already pointed this out some pages ago.
I am not judging any one for what standards they have or don't have. You don't even know where I stand. Why are you judging me?

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Romans 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Romans 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

 

I understand you 100%, I was just trying to say so in a humorous way, which was missed. I'm with you, if you read what I said, I had believed you would see that I was agreeing with you, I guess I failed at humor, but all is well my friend.

 

Sorry about that. Sometimes I can't tell if a person is being serious or not.

 

Excellent post, DHK, and thank you for clarifying how you view others in their preferences of music, dress, etc. There have been instances where I felt maybe you were judgmental towards myself or others who had different preferences than yours, and now I see I was wrong about that. So, I do appreciate your post in more ways than one.:wavey:

 

See what she has to put up with.

 

That is fine my friend. I stay out of so many debates, because some of the best Christians that have been here haven't agreed when it was over, but so many knew how to act when it was over and so many didn't.
So many times we Christians forget how to act as we should and, man I have been guilty of that, and I don't like it.

 

DHK, you're placing one in soul authority, not at soul liberty. You spoke of legalism applied to salvation then you go off into sanctification. There usually is made the objection of legalism today by other saved people and it's always about the walk with God, not about adding to salvation, and you bluntly said I was ignorant? I'm at liberty to walk with God and according to Him, not at liberty to expect God to walk with me no matter how I see it

 

My Pastor preached on this very topic today. He talked about how some people that he counsels want him to give them scripture that will justify the sins and the sinful conditions in their lives, and he continued by saying that he could never do that - the truth of the matter is that God will walk with us when we follow His will.

Debbie Mc