Farmgal
-
Posts
55 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Farmgal
-
-
My question was in no way agreement with Obamacare, but my rates have been going up before Obama care. So I would love to see how Obama care has been the reason for rates going up. My main issue with Obama care is the forced nature.
The reason Obamacare is causing our insurance rates to go up (and yes, I understand they went up previously, but there will be a drastic increase now), because there will be people, who are below poverty level, who will get free healthcare. Someone has to cover the cost, this cost gets pushed onto the insurance companies which gets pushed onto us.
If you go to an emergency room at present, they can not turn you away regardless if you have health insurance, these visits also get pushed onto the insurance companies, which get pushed onto us. One factor is illegal immigrants, they do not have insurance, but will not get turned away from ER's, another factor is the high unemployment rate, people go to ER without jobs and insurance. All of these costs end up in our lap.
It is why, when you look at people who are above poverty line right now, they STILL won't be able to afford insurance, especially with the rising cost of insurance. Now companies will be laying off to avoid having to purchase insurance and/or pay a penalty, so those people will be added to unemployment, who now will be receiving free healthcare, which will end up in our laps.
It's a non-escaping cycle, it only benefits a few Americans while trapping the rest of us. It would have made more sense to start a program helping those people w/out insurance instead of the mandate, but we don't do things that make sense.
Now back to Ed's motto. :-)
-
Heath care insurance costs have gone - and continue to go up - for a myriad of reasons. One of them is the nature of insurance itself. Did you ever ponder this?
I have car insurance. You probably have car insurance. Why? Well, one - probably because it's required by your state. But putting that aside - even if it weren't a state requirement, you probably would (for economic reasons) purchase insurance.
Would that insurance cover routine maintenance items like oil changes, tune ups and tire rotations? Probably not - those you would cover yourself. You would have the insurance for CATASTROPHIC events - like car accidents, coverage of the car and bodily injuries.
Can we all agree that - if car insurance DID cover all those routine items - that it would be prohibitively expensive?
Yet we expect health insurance to cover routine office visits and things like cosmetic surgery.
But again - this is all pointless. The merits (or lack thereof) of Obamacare have been debated ad nauseum, and the people have spoken.
This is apparently what they want - thus, this is what they shall have.
Elections have consequences. (My motto for the next four years, or until the economy crashes - whichever comes first.)
Blessings!
-Ed
You are right, Ed! Very wise of you, if you don't mind, I think I might borrow your motto. No use arguing over this anymore, it's exhausting, the next 4 years will speak for itself.
-
w
Obamacare is a small business killer, insurance rates have risen (ours has gone up about 50%), which forces the company to either 1). pay the penalty 2). lay-off, the person who was insured will either have to pay another penalty or find their own health insurance to the tune of $800-1400 a month. Many people's insurance has already risen to these levels, insurance companies also have strategic plans to make a profit.
Lay-offs increases the number of people on gov't assistance. Obamacare is all around not good for America.
At least 47% of us knew what was coming, so not a shocking story.
What about Obamacare caused your health insurance to go up 50%? Before Obamacare my insurance rates were going up, I don't see what has changedc concerning this.
My HR head says that insurance costs ARE going up but it's only slightly due to Obamacare (the preexisting conditions clause). From what I understand, companies are already required to provide health insurance if they have fifty or more employees and have been for some time.. The main reason is the average age of workers.
Many people's insurance did not rise until Obamacare was passed. The promise of Obamacare was to make a change at a realitively low cost to the consumer, this was an outright lie seems how insurance costs have increased dramatically since its passing.
The company my husband works for employs 100,000's of workers, this is the first time our premiums have increased this much and it was AFTER Obama was re-elected. There is a pending strike over the healthcare portion of the contract.
Just google "rising cost of insurance" and almost every article will tell you it's due to Obamacare, what your HR person has said - is his/her opinion. The facts are out there, companies will be laying off due to the cost of Obamacare, not to mention the additional taxes Obama wants placed on them. Unemployment rates will skyrocket over the next year, gov't assistance will skyrocket and so will our deficit. When gov't takes control, nothing good comes from it.
-
Obamacare is a small business killer, insurance rates have risen (ours has gone up about 50%), which forces the company to either 1). pay the penalty 2). lay-off, the person who was insured will either have to pay another penalty or find their own health insurance to the tune of $800-1400 a month. Many people's insurance has already risen to these levels, insurance companies also have strategic plans to make a profit.
Lay-offs increases the number of people on gov't assistance. Obamacare is all around not good for America.
At least 47% of us knew what was coming, so not a shocking story.
-
I think the problem is taking "good works" as our works. Heb4:11: "Make every effort to enter the rest..." This is our salvation-rest in Christ, through him the Father does the works in and for us. This does not mean striving to be better or more righteous or to do more; any improvement or strength is in the hands of God, and our righteousness is in Christ.
Good points in bold Numenian. Part of legalism is "the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws" or judging conduct in term of adherence to what one considers good works. A good concept to establish would be what are good works and what is their purpose?
For clarification... By the way for those interested I'm not saying we should do away with the law. In fact I attest to the opposite in another thread. We're to obey God's Word out of love (God's grace) not duty (in bondage). See the thread about the 10 commandments...
See: http://www.worthychr...60#entry1881427
and
http://www.worthychr...80#entry1881856
God's grace empowers us to obey AND do the works God has prepared for us. I will stand by; if you do not have works you do not have faith, faith without works is dead.
The churches today are not teaching people how to be disciples of Christ through faith and action. It is not a lay down faith, it is one of boldness, empowerment, courage and strength, we do have Christ in us, He is doing His work in and through us:
It leads to the problem, however, why is the church not at work? If we as a Body were at work the effects would be tremendous, the world would stand up and notice. Why isn't it happening?
If I think this way - am I being legalistic? The Body of Christ needs to get to work!
I agree with you. Faith without works is dead. (James 2:14-26)
No I don't think you're being legalistic by saying Christians should be about good works. The Bible says as much so it is true.
But I ask again what are good works?
What is the purpose of good works?
We should be doing the work of Christ. As the Body of Christ, we are participating with God in advancing His Kingdom. The Kingdom is in us and all around us, Jesus was all about it and if we are the Body, we should be following Him in the same. I don't know what God's work for you is and you don't know what mine is - but we can both know it will be all about advancing His Kingdom......and praise Him that we have this most awesome privilege!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I think the problem is taking "good works" as our works. Heb4:11: "Make every effort to enter the rest..." This is our salvation-rest in Christ, through him the Father does the works in and for us. This does not mean striving to be better or more righteous or to do more; any improvement or strength is in the hands of God, and our righteousness is in Christ.
Good points in bold Numenian. Part of legalism is "the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws" or judging conduct in term of adherence to what one considers good works. A good concept to establish would be what are good works and what is their purpose?
For clarification... By the way for those interested I'm not saying we should do away with the law. In fact I attest to the opposite in another thread. We're to obey God's Word out of love (God's grace) not duty (in bondage). See the thread about the 10 commandments...
See: http://www.worthychr...60#entry1881427
and
http://www.worthychr...80#entry1881856
God's grace empowers us to obey AND do the works God has prepared for us. I will stand by; if you do not have works you do not have faith, faith without works is dead.
The churches today are not teaching people how to be disciples of Christ through faith and action. It is not a lay down faith, it is one of boldness, empowerment, courage and strength, we do have Christ in us, He is doing His work in and through us:
It leads to the problem, however, why is the church not at work? If we as a Body were at work the effects would be tremendous, the world would stand up and notice. Why isn't it happening?
If I think this way - am I being legalistic? The Body of Christ needs to get to work!
-
The Early Church did not think that the redistribution of wealth was wrong; most were communist enterprises. Not Marxism, Christism. They shared in everything. Take the scene where in Acts a couple are struck dead for their failure to redistribute their wealth. In such close and closed communities the slackers and corrupt officials were easily identified. This communal style of living was necessary for Christians were seen periodically as enemies of the state and this was a way to survive the prejudice and persecution.
I agree with this almost completely, I believe we are called to live as this today.
I don't agree with the concept of redistribution of wealth on the government level, the people were called to share all they had with others - directly - not through gov't intervention. The difference would be having a relationship with those who shared all, it was an obedience on the part of the givers, not a forced edict of any wordly gov't.
We are the Body of Christ and we were called to care for the poor and the widow - not the gov't - we're just doing a really bad job in America, we are too comfortable in our western lifestyle here to step out in faith to actually look like the Church in Acts.
-
Hey GoldenEagle,
I agreed with the definition you provided of legalism if it would stop there, but it does not stop there.
The bottom line is if you do not have works, you do not have faith - because we know faith without works is dead. A person who shows forth fruit - is an obedient person first and foremost, those who love the Lord will be obedient, in our obedience, God transforms us to the image of Christ. If we are not obedient, we do not love the Lord, we will not show forth fruit. Do you see the connection? There is our part of the covenant to uphold, we obey and DO the work God has prepared for us, is, like it or not, deemed legalistic and it's not.
If there is any indication what so ever that it appears we are trying to save ourselves by doing His work through obedience, people, in the feel good Christianity we have today, is deemed legalistic. Christianity is dying to ourselves on a daily basis, it is being slain by the cross, allowing our old man to die and the new creation come alive, this has been lost! We see people today who seem to believe after they "accept Christ" they are free to do whatever their hearts desire wants them to do, this is not salvation, it is not sanctification. A requirement of obedience through the love of the Lord is required, the only way to achieve this is abiding in Christ. Abiding is an action verb, faith is action, obedience is action, action on our part is considered legalistic in today's Christianity.
That's how I see it.
-
Today, while I was eating dinner, I had a piece of white meat skinless chicken that I was saving for last to enjoy, when, as usual, my little doggy came up to the table begging. He stared up at me with those big, sad eyes, and I began to melt. Problem was, I really was looking forward to eating that chicken.
As you can already guess, I sighed, took the piece of chicken and placed it on the floor in front of him.
Do you want to know what that little poop did? He sniffed at the chicken, turned, and walked away!
I sat there with my mouth hanging open when a thought hit me. In the beginning, God gave us his very best, and just like my puppy, we turned up our noses and walked away.
Life lessons come from the strangest places!
This is great, thanks for sharing.
-
nebula
But I appreciate what some have taught - sometimes the Lord plays Hide-and-go-seek with us. He's silent because He wants us to seek Him. It isn't because something is "wrong" with us, He just wants us to dig deeper into Him.
Were they not saying, What profit is it to serve God? Even the sinners are blessed? Was not his response that your words have been stout against me?
You keep saying that God "gives one nice things". that and your comment "even the sinners are blessed?", illustrates the difference between what I think and what you think.
Yes, I believe that God can bless a sinner if He so wishes. I know that He loves them.. I know that he loved me when I was a sinner, I know that He protected me and watched over me, and never once abandoned me, although I abandoned Him.
And here is the kicker. I don't care if God blesses me with "nice things", I never think about it. I just walk His path, because that is all He wants me to do.
Because I know in my heart that the "good" Paul talks about in Romans is eternal, and has nothing to do with the now.
Amen, Fez!
In America, it is the "sign" for God's favor I think - to be blessed with nice things (not what God is interested in, of course). Instead, living in Christ is supernatural! Miracles happen, needs are met, joy and peace are given, insight and wisdom are given! He is more concerned about us conforming to the image of Christ and our character above all else, in these things God is most glorified.
Seek the Kingdom of God first and His righteousness!
-
When God is silent, do you still trust in Him?
I have seen many folks start to lose their faith when He is silent. That does not speak well of their faith if they cannot still trust Him then.
It could be the reason He is silent, to grow our faith.
-
I guess we should start putting 5 year olds down in coal mines again.
LOL
I doubt if most people know what "hoeing beans" is, but I was doing it at age 5, my brother and I would have to take turns, the rows of beans were long! We worked on the farm our entire childhoods, good work ethics are good for a person, something that many children lack today because of these "child labor laws".
The problem is these kids today can not get a job, many companies (in this area) won't even hire 16 year olds because of all the silly regulations. They can only work so many hours, safety issues, etc. It's really silly, a 13 year old could make hamburgers at McDonalds, it doesn't take a rocket scientist, however, due to all these rules we have now, they can't work even if they want to.
Hard work doesn't hurt anyone, it teaches responsibilities, money management, time management, how to take direction, independence, this has all been taken away in many ways.
I'm from Tn. I've hoed plenty of beans. I've snapped them too.
I agree farm work and other reasonable age appropriate work for children is fine.
But, I would hate to go back to the days when kids were kept out of school to work, when very small children worked in unsanitary and unsafe conditions such as sweat shops for pennies a day. We do not want to become China or go back to the days when children were chained to machines and beaten if they were not up to quota.
Well, of course not, however the laws on the books disadvantage our children greatly. We now live in the entitlement age, people believe money grows on trees. Hard work and earning wages is going by the wayside, people believe you can take without working, it's yours without doing anything. Our kids need to learn good work ethics.
-
I guess we should start putting 5 year olds down in coal mines again.
LOL
I doubt if most people know what "hoeing beans" is, but I was doing it at age 5, my brother and I would have to take turns, the rows of beans were long! We worked on the farm our entire childhoods, good work ethics are good for a person, something that many children lack today because of these "child labor laws".
The problem is these kids today can not get a job, many companies (in this area) won't even hire 16 year olds because of all the silly regulations. They can only work so many hours, safety issues, etc. It's really silly, a 13 year old could make hamburgers at McDonalds, it doesn't take a rocket scientist, however, due to all these rules we have now, they can't work even if they want to.
Hard work doesn't hurt anyone, it teaches responsibilities, money management, time management, how to take direction, independence, this has all been taken away in many ways.
Helping milk cows on my grandmother's dairy farm and picking cotton and threshing peanuts on my other grandparents farm sure game me the incentive to go to school.
LOL! Yes, I agree, same here, I couldn't wait to go to college!
-
I guess we should start putting 5 year olds down in coal mines again.
LOL
I doubt if most people know what "hoeing beans" is, but I was doing it at age 5, my brother and I would have to take turns, the rows of beans were long! We worked on the farm our entire childhoods, good work ethics are good for a person, something that many children lack today because of these "child labor laws".
The problem is these kids today can not get a job, many companies (in this area) won't even hire 16 year olds because of all the silly regulations. They can only work so many hours, safety issues, etc. It's really silly, a 13 year old could make hamburgers at McDonalds, it doesn't take a rocket scientist, however, due to all these rules we have now, they can't work even if they want to.
Hard work doesn't hurt anyone, it teaches responsibilities, money management, time management, how to take direction, independence, this has all been taken away in many ways.
-
The article is good, Tinky, thanks for posting!
It reminded me of a quote by A.W. Tozer:
see aright, the cross of popular evangelicalism is not the cross of the New Testament. It is, rather, a new bright ornament upon the bosom of a self-assured and carnal Christianity. The old cross slew men, the new cross entertains them. The old cross condemned; the new cross amuses. The old cross destroyed confidence in the flesh; the new cross encourages it.
-
A question asked by a member of my home group the other day, and one I want to discuss further.
At first I thought, no brainer, of course He is not. But when I started thinking I saw that (as with a lot of scripture), the answer is not as cut and dried as one might think.
For instance, the statement, "I am not just hearing God when I pray", could mean He is silent, or we are deaf?
As I say, not as easy to answer as one might think.
Hi Fez!
Great question, Fez, it will be interesting to hear other's insights, looking forward to it.
Time for me is limited this morning to search scripture, but here is my take on it:
God is silent sometimes for probably several reasons. One of which is how do we respond to Him when He is silent, will we remain faithful to Him? Will we make the right choice? This is an unpopular belief, but God does test us (not tempt as He does not tempt us), yet He does test us, and in some cases maybe that is what He is doing. Job is a good example of a person being tested, having silence from God and remaining faithful in all of his afflictions, of course God eventually does answer Job but not at first.
Other posts have mentioned praying and James, that topic is more of the person who doubts when they pray, the silence from God is the answer when we pray and doubt or ask with wrong motivations.
Blessings.
-
This is an awesome video, thanks for posting.
Well, said One LIght!
He is the overcomer and He lives in us! Praise God!
-
But let's look at another passage shall we? How about Luke 11:37-54. Steven Cole has a good paper on the subject. See below.
WHY JESUS HATES LEGALISM
By: Steven J. Cole
http://www.fcfonline...ons/041199m.pdf
Luke 11:37-54
{Highlights and selections from Cole’s paper.}
Legalism is an attempt to gain favor with God or to impress our fellow man by doing certain things (or avoiding other things), without regard to the condition of our hearts before God.
Jesus hates legalism because it does not deal with the condition of our hearts before God.
Remember, Jesus hates legalism because it does not deal with the condition of our sinful hearts before God. But Jesus loves grace, because it is by His grace that He transforms sinners into saints who love God and who love others.
Jesus (11:39) confronted the Pharisees with the fact that although they went to great lengths to clean their cups and platters, they neglected to cleanse their hearts, which were full of robbery and wickedness. The Pharisees despised those who were openly sinful, but God looks not only at the outward person, but also on the heart.
In Luke 11:37-41 we have the set- ting and overall theme, that legalism puts the emphasis on the external to the neglect of the internal. Then, in 11:42-44 Jesus pronounces three woes on the Pharisees in which He sets forth some of the specific problems with legalism.
1. The first woe: Legalism majors on minors and minors on majors (11:42).
2. The second woe: Legalism focuses on self-glory (11:43).
3. The third woe: Legalism subtly corrupts others (11:44).
4. The fourth woe: Legalism burdens people with peripheral commandments (11:46).
5. The fifth woe: Legalism dodges the personal application of God’s holiness, but pretends outwardly to honor it (11:47-51).
6. The sixth woe: Legalism misses the true knowledge of God and misleads those who seek to know Him (11:52).
Conclusion:
Remember, Jesus hates legalism because it does not deal with the condition of our sinful hearts before God. But Jesus loves grace, because it is by His grace that He transforms sinners into saints who love God and who love others.
Your thoughts?
Hi Goldeneagle,
I agree with the definition of legalism you provided.
There seems to be a problem with "works salvation" getting mixed up with obedience and the work God has prepared for us, which is not legalism at all, it is just loving the Lord God and our neighbor as ourselves, which, through Christ, is the fulfillment of the law. It's simple.
-
I posted this in another thread, but that thread was locked...
Improper use of the law is the misunderstanding the law has been done away with, that it is no more, which is not true.
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid yea, we establish the law.
So how are we supposed to establish it, if we think it's disappeared and we are no longer adhering to it?
Jesus told us the law and the prophets are hung on loving God and your neighbor as yourself. If you love God and others, when you do this and you look at the law, we can see how the requirements of the law are met (in us through Christ). We are told to love as God loves, there is no other way to do this, but abide in Christ, and inner workings of Him, through Him we are able to establish the law in us, it is fulfilled in us and by His grace we are able to live it out perfectly.
Jesus said those who love God will keep His commandments. We love by obeying.
It is all about BOTH the law and grace, you can not have one without the other, the law establishes the standard, grace is the empowerment we are given to get there.
The pendulum swinging too far either way is wrong. Who needs grace when the law is the measuring stick and not just the law, but every
bondage that Jesus died to break us out of
You are free to observe anything you want. I must have had a wonderful childhood because I had to come to this forum to find out how
unreasonable legalism is and that those who measure the heart by the length of the skirt seem to think that those who do not agree
with them, are fair game and perhaps even unloved by God
I have read a number of articles by people who have left congregations like that and they thank God to be free of them
I don't see any point in going over your post in response because the question is settled for me and I don;t know if you are actually
questioning or trying to convince me to see things your way
You should know I have already done my time in an abusive ministry and I know the signs and I know how people talk
and I want nothing to do with any of it
I really have nothing to add to anything because I don't agree with your position or reasoning and I guess I was
overly hopeful when I though we had something to agree on
Legalism is a very real and I am afraid very dead subject
The problem for you is, everything I have said is scriptural and you chose to ignore the scripture I have provided and doing exactly what was stated earlier about when people walk the walk, they are deemed legalistic. If that is the case, Jesus was legalistic in your opinion.
You have never, not once, commented on this scripture:
Romans 8:4 the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us
Can you please explain what this means if the law is no longer in existance?
You also have chosen to ignore this verse all I have gotten is "IMO", we should not be concerned about another's opinions, we should be concerned about what God's Word says.
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid yea, we establish the law.
Please, again, explain why "we establish the law" when the law is no longer available. I am not speaking of living "under the law" as a Judaizer as I have pointed out to you prior to this post.
Also ignored were the commandments Jesus gave us, and in these two commandments, through grace we are able to fulfill it (as stated in Romans 8:4)
Love the Lord God with all of your heart, mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself.
We are able to love as he loved (Ephesians 5:2) by abiding in Christ (please read John 15 - all of it), as we abide in Christ we are able to fulfill the law (again as stated in Romans 8:4). It also explains that apart from Him, we can do nothing, which brings us to:
Matthew 19:26 with man this is not possible, but All things are possible with God.
Where one is walking in the Spirit, there is love, it is not legalism, it is what God has said in His Word.
Farmgal, I have enjoyed reading your posts. They are by far the most sound comments I have encountered in any of these threads on legalism. While it is possible that you may not agree with everything I have said, and I might not agree with every view you hold, unlike some, I fully understand your position, and can see you have an understanding of scripture. I don't see how anyone can accuse you of taking scriptures out of their context to suit your purposes? What you have said is sound.
Thanks Butero, my experience on forums is that people look beyond scripture so they can hang onto their denominational beliefs and then accuse of taking scripture out of context, I could post the entire chapter of where the verse is found, but that wouldn't do any good either.
-
I posted this in another thread, but that thread was locked...
Improper use of the law is the misunderstanding the law has been done away with, that it is no more, which is not true.
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid yea, we establish the law.
So how are we supposed to establish it, if we think it's disappeared and we are no longer adhering to it?
Jesus told us the law and the prophets are hung on loving God and your neighbor as yourself. If you love God and others, when you do this and you look at the law, we can see how the requirements of the law are met (in us through Christ). We are told to love as God loves, there is no other way to do this, but abide in Christ, and inner workings of Him, through Him we are able to establish the law in us, it is fulfilled in us and by His grace we are able to live it out perfectly.
Jesus said those who love God will keep His commandments. We love by obeying.
It is all about BOTH the law and grace, you can not have one without the other, the law establishes the standard, grace is the empowerment we are given to get there.
The pendulum swinging too far either way is wrong. Who needs grace when the law is the measuring stick and not just the law, but every
bondage that Jesus died to break us out of
You are free to observe anything you want. I must have had a wonderful childhood because I had to come to this forum to find out how
unreasonable legalism is and that those who measure the heart by the length of the skirt seem to think that those who do not agree
with them, are fair game and perhaps even unloved by God
I have read a number of articles by people who have left congregations like that and they thank God to be free of them
I don't see any point in going over your post in response because the question is settled for me and I don;t know if you are actually
questioning or trying to convince me to see things your way
You should know I have already done my time in an abusive ministry and I know the signs and I know how people talk
and I want nothing to do with any of it
I really have nothing to add to anything because I don't agree with your position or reasoning and I guess I was
overly hopeful when I though we had something to agree on
Legalism is a very real and I am afraid very dead subject
The problem for you is, everything I have said is scriptural and you chose to ignore the scripture I have provided and doing exactly what was stated earlier about when people walk the walk, they are deemed legalistic. If that is the case, Jesus was legalistic in your opinion.
You have never, not once, commented on this scripture:
Romans 8:4 the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us
Can you please explain what this means if the law is no longer in existance?
You also have chosen to ignore this verse all I have gotten is "IMO", we should not be concerned about another's opinions, we should be concerned about what God's Word says.
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid yea, we establish the law.
Please, again, explain why "we establish the law" when the law is no longer available. I am not speaking of living "under the law" as a Judaizer as I have pointed out to you prior to this post.
Also ignored were the commandments Jesus gave us, and in these two commandments, through grace we are able to fulfill it (as stated in Romans 8:4)
Love the Lord God with all of your heart, mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself.
We are able to love as he loved (Ephesians 5:2) by abiding in Christ (please read John 15 - all of it), as we abide in Christ we are able to fulfill the law (again as stated in Romans 8:4). It also explains that apart from Him, we can do nothing, which brings us to:
Matthew 19:26 with man this is not possible, but All things are possible with God.
Where one is walking in the Spirit, there is love, it is not legalism, it is what God has said in His Word.
-
I posted this in another thread, but that thread was locked...
Improper use of the law is the misunderstanding the law has been done away with, that it is no more, which is not true.
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid yea, we establish the law.
So how are we supposed to establish it, if we think it's disappeared and we are no longer adhering to it?
Jesus told us the law and the prophets are hung on loving God and your neighbor as yourself. If you love God and others, when you do this and you look at the law, we can see how the requirements of the law are met (in us through Christ). We are told to love as God loves, there is no other way to do this, but abide in Christ, and inner workings of Him, through Him we are able to establish the law in us, it is fulfilled in us and by His grace we are able to live it out perfectly.
Jesus said those who love God will keep His commandments. We love by obeying.
It is all about BOTH the law and grace, you can not have one without the other, the law establishes the standard, grace is the empowerment we are given to get there.
-
Clothing styles change. They also vary from one culture to another. God does not specify the style of clothing to be worn. The only time He did so was when He designated the types of garments to be worn by the priests, under the Law of Moses. (By the way, they wore under-shorts (breeches), girdles, bonnets, and coats, along with their robes.) The same people who command women to wear dresses usually also condemn men's wearing of shorts! Yet some of those same people will quote Exodus 28 as proof that the men are to wear the britches (breeches), and not the women. Should the men also wear girdles and bonnets, but not the women?
Fallacies of the “dresses only” arguments:
(1) We do not live by commandments from the Law of Moses.
(2) The Jewish women wore robes, not European/American style dresses.
(3) The Jewish men wore robes, not pants.
(4) Katastole translates as “to send down”, not as “long & flowing”.
(5) Even if it did, how long is long? To the knees? Below? To the ankles? Or floor?
(6) The context is for godly demeanor, not cut of cloth. Fallacies of the “dresses only” arguments:
(1) We do not live by commandments from the Law of Moses.
(2) The Jewish women wore robes, not European/American style dresses.
(3) The Jewish men wore robes, not pants.
(4) Katastole translates as “to send down”, not as “long & flowing”.
(5) Even if it did, how long is long? To the knees? Below? To the ankles? Or floor?
(6) The context is for godly demeanor, not cut of cloth.
The arguments are endless, as it always is when we choose legalistic arguments rather than trying to understand the spiritual message. Some argue that culottes are not acceptable, while others who press for “dresses only” say that they are a type of a dress. Some say that skirts and blouses may not be worn, because blouses are form-fitting, not long and flowing. Others say that blouses are merely men’s shirts renamed to make them acceptable.
Then there is the argument that pants are God’s authorized clothing for men. The scriptures indicate that the Israelites wore robes, not pants.
Exodus 20:26 "Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.”
Was God concerned that someone might look up the priest’s pant-legs—or up his robe?
For those who claim that “pants” are God’s designated form of outerwear for men, a quick study of the history of pants will set the record straight.
Godly men and women should conduct themselves in purity and humility—this includes how they dress. That is what God demands. Let us not go beyond what is written regarding “modesty” by defining for God a cut of cloth that He did not define for us.
Above is a copy paste...but I agree with the authors words
To those who would like to condemn a woman because she wears slacks, have you considered that you should be wearing a robe?
With no underwear?
How far do legalists want to take it? No wonder Paul asked the Galatians who had bewitched them
The other concern, is why do some people immediately assume that the disallowance for legalism is an automatic door to allow sin?
This is an erroneous conclusion. The entire Bible should be taken into consideration.....and the NT is very clear that being free
in Christ does NOT mean free to sin
Perhaps one should stop trying to make an issue out of something that does not exist in order to defend legalism
At any rate, hitting on others and being abusive in language and demeanor and trying to intimidate is just not acceptable
irregardless of what you are wearing
If this post is because I mentioned clothing, sorry, I was only using an example of how God might convict someone to be "set apart" for Him. I do believe He does do this, as He calls people to remote areas of the world as a missionary. We are all part of the same Body, we all have different gifts for the edification and building up of the Body.
On the other hand, we ARE to be set apart from the world, we ARE to be Holy, and we are not to look like the world. These are rules to follow are they not? If God calls us to not look like the world, and they do not look like the world, is this legalistic?
Legalism has been taken way too far in Christian communities to say something it is not, and what those communities are saying is: we are free in Christ, therefore we can do whatever we would like, dress however we like, hang out with whoever we like and go wherever we like - all because we are not legalistic.
Jesus was extremely legalistic with our definition of it today, and please, I am not talking about living under the Jewish laws, although with Christ the laws are fulfilled in us so that we might carry them out perfectly as we abide in Christ.
-
This particularly topic has been the subject of controversy for two millennia. It is very difficult for many people to grasp and has been a constant source of discussion within the church. No subject is more intimately bound up with the nature of the gospel than that of law and grace. In the degree to which error is entertained at this point, in the same degree is our conception of the gospel perverted. An erroneous conception of the function of law can be of such a character that it completely vitiates our view of the gospel; and an erroneous conception of the antithesis between law and grace can be of such a character that it demolishes both the substructure and the superstructure of grace.
It is absolutely vital to get a clear understanding of law and grace, and that will need plenty of rehashing and deep probing.
Maybe you could start a new thread.
I do want to point out that we establish the law, it is by grace we are able to abide perfectly.
Romans 3:31 Do we make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea we establish the law.
-
I have already posted the scripture, but will do so again, the law has not disappeared as you are so trying to "get rid of it".
Romans 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Uh huh....but ONLY if we do not walk according to the flesh, what do you think legalism is?
Christ fulfilled the law...we never could....legalism is ADDING to the perfect work of Christ on the cross
Do you think Galatians is not all that?
I have shown you - as we walk in the Spirit - the law is fulfilled in us, we are able to obey (the law) perfectly. Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.
I don't have a problem with Galatians, of course, it is God's Word, yet people take what Paul says and it apply it to their lives and then state they are free in Christ to do whatever it is they would like to do.
Yes, I see it across the board in a believer's life, sin is a HUGE problem, we are to be sinless, ridding ourselves of it - this would be deemed by some to be legalistic, not saying you are saying that, but I am trying to point out that when people obey, live Holy lives, they are deemed legalistic, as I stated in a previous post.
We are free in Christ, to live as Christ did, walk as He walked.
I understand all of that....this thread is about legalisim...which is NOT living holy before God...determining that someone who does not live
as YOU personally see holiness, would easily be defined as legalisim IMO....
BTW, when I put a word in caps, it's for emphasis...I'm not yelling so no worries
I'm not worried about the caps, I do the same thing to emphasis, so don't think I am yelling either.
I understand this thread is about legalism, I stated in an earlier post that people need to be careful at labeling people legalistic because of what God has convicted them of. Some people do not watch TV, some people do not read certain kinds of books, some people wear only dresses - because they are convicted by God to do so and this could be viewed as a form of legalism to some.
It is not MY personal view of holiness, God's standard is Jesus, He set the standard, not I.
What is the standard by which we will be judged?
in General Discussion
Posted
We're not judged by the law because we're no longer under the law. We are led by the Spirit, not the letter:
2 Cor 3:6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
The standard is Christ, the Bible tells us to pick up our cross daily and die to ourselves, it is no longer I that lives, but Christ who lives in me. We are conforming to the image of Christ, running a race:
Ephesians 4:13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.