Four Antilegalistic Strategies?

[Guest Butero]

I have a question for both Sevenseas and Willamina, which I hope will go a long way towards clarifying both of your positions.  You have both gone to great lengths, especially Sevenseas, to attack keeping the law, and saying we aren't required to do so.  Sevenseas went so far as to call it an abomination to say there are portions of the law that apply and others that don't.  Here is what Deuteronomy 22:5 says.

 

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:  for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. 

 

Willamina went to great lengths to tell us of other laws she doesn't keep, and Sevenseas has been saying we aren't obligated to keep the law, period.  I have two questions for both of you if you are willing to give an honest answer.

 

1.  Do you acknowledge that if we were under the law of Moses, you could be technically violating this law?

 

2.  Since you both have indicated we are not under the law, does that mean it is now ok for a man to wear women's clothes and for a woman to wear clothes that pertain to a man? 

 

I would really appreciate honest answers, because that is the only way to get to what you really believe.  Thanks in advance. 

[Guest]

The Law

 

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Romans 3:27

 

Of The

 

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

 

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

 

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Romans 3:23-26

 

Christ

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

~

 

You can be a legalist and an oppressive leader and not be full of pride. 

 

Claiming I can't have it both ways is judgmental, because that comment is assuming pride as a motivating factor, rather than trying to live by scripture and save others from hell. 

 

Look at some of your other comments that are also judgmental. 

 

You are automatically looking at the convictions of others as "weak, ridiculously flawed, a product of immaturity and ignorance of truth. 

 

It is possible for you to be full of pride in thinking yourself superior because you consider yourself more mature than others. 

 

What is often labeled as legalism is nothing more than applying scripture to specific things people are doing. 

 

For instance, there is a scripture in Leviticus about not printing marks on your body that can be applied to tattoos. 

 

Who are you to claim it can't be applied in that manner, and that you are right? 

 

There is a scripture in Deuteronomy 22:5 that can be applied to the clothes women wear today. 

 

Who are you to say that is a wrong application? 

 

There is a scripture about not defiling your temple that some use to speak out against tobacco products. 

 

Who are you to claim they are wrong? 

 

Don't get me wrong. 

 

You are certainly entitled to take any position you wish,

 

but so is everyone else, and I sense an air of superiority on your part when you come against people who will take "controversial" positions you don't happen to agree with. 

 

Romans makes it clear that when  person abstains from something they consider unclean, they do so as unto the Lord,

 

and you are just as wrong to come against them as they are wrong to condemn you to hell for doing things they don't agree with. 

 

 

Jesus Always Made It Legal

 

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:20

 

Without The Deeds

 

Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. Habakkuk 2:4

 

Of The Law

 

And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. Genesis 15:6

 

For It Is Indeed

 

In thee, O LORD, do I put my trust; let me never be ashamed: deliver me in thy righteousness. Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me. For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me. Psalms 31:1-3

 

The LORD's Salvation

 

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:5-6

 

And Not My Legal Works

 

But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. Genesis 6:8

 

That Saved A Wretch Like Me

 

Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. Genesis 3:21

[Sevenseas]

 

 

 

SEVENSEAS:  I guess you will respond, but each person can read the Bible for themselves.

 

BUTERO:  You shouldn't make assumptions. 

 

How long have you thought that guess means assumed?  

 

It doesn't

 

That is really profound Sevenseas!  Thanks for clearing that up. 

 

 

 

aww shucks...twern't nuthin...

[Sevenseas]

 

 

 

BUTERO:  This is what I have derived at from your writings over numerous posts.  If it is not accurate, then please explain where I am wrong?  If the law doesn't apply to us, period, and everything is according to grace, then how can a man who steals, cheats or lies but is a Christian be any less holy in the sight of God than a man who is of good character? 

 

 

 

Well, that is the problem then.  You appear to translate what a person posts and really, I don't need a filter.  I simply mean what I write and write what I mean.

 

Nothing more needs to be explained because I know for a fact that other posters here do not have the understanding you say that you do.  They understand

from the book of Romans exactly what I understand.  Very few people that I am aware of in these forums, take the stand on grace and the law that you do.

 

I am sorry, but my impression of how you respond is that you either deliberately misquote or you really do not understand even though myself and others have

quoted the portions of scripture that you misapply.  Either way, this is something you seem to  be uncomfortable with.  I, on the other hand, thank God for my

liberty in Christ and the wonderful fact that I am accepted by God because of what Christ has done for me.  No effort on my part at all.  And to top it off, God

is so good, that He changes the desires of my heart as I study His word and He renews my mind just as He says He will.

 

There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.  Those who continue to condemn and point their fingers are stuck in a no man's land of love that

needs to be earned and behavior modification by threat of hell if you don't comply.  That, is not God's doing.  That, is man seeking to create an image of God

within himself that is acceptable to God, not realizing that the only image that actually IS acceptable to God, and the one He looks for in us, is the image of

His own Son.

 

ps:  was the quote feature broken at yr end?  

 

You have carefully selected and edited portions from my post (s) and attempted to make it look as though we had this actual dialogue.  

 

Thankfully, you are not the actual record keeper.

 

Maybe that is what is playing in your memory, but it is not factual

 

I put every single thing you said in that post.  If you are going to make an accusation like that, show me evidence of anything I left out.  The quote feature wasn't technically broken.  The post was so long, and there were so many quotes, it wouldn't allow me to answer you in that fashion, so I had to do it the way I did.  Again, not one word of the dialogue was left out.  I went through it section by section and showed what you said, and then gave a response.  Everyone is welcome to go back and read it carefully and they will see that is true.  Even Golden Eagle commented about how long the post was.  Are you actually claiming that I left some of your comments out and it was still that long???

 

You can't speak for everyone Sevenseas.  You only speak for yourself.  You can't go through and say everyone believes as you do.  It just doesn't work that way.  I have read a lot of the things you have said at wb, and even when others have similar views, I see differences.  You speak for one person, and that is you, as I speak for myself.  What you are teaching is a complete misrepresentation of what Paul is teaching, and it goes against sound doctrine.  You still haven't denied anything I said about what you believe.  Under your version of grace, God doesn't look upon our sins if we are Christians.  Nothing we do can cost us our salvation, so that would mean that a man who is a thief and a womanizer, but saved, is just as holy in the sight of God as a good moral person who is saved.  There can be no difference because if you have spot on your garment, you won't enter heaven. 

 

 

 

That is a very dusty glass you are looking through.

 

Yes, you did use some thoughts I have expressed in your carefully arranged 'conversation'...which we never had...but it is fabricated because you left out other things I posted and just used

selected portions...kind of like a kid pushing the peas around on his plate and not eating them, while eating the hamburger.  

 

I don't have a version of grace.  I understand and believe THE ONLY grace God offers.  Along with most of the other folks in this forum.

 

You, are actually the exception in believing portions of the OT law should be observed but not all of it. 

 

 And this, no matter how many times people here point out the grievous error in thinking that way.

 

And no matter how many portions of scripture are provided that state that no one can keep the law or any part of it and count it to themself as righteousness.

 

That, unfortuneatly, is the actual sin and not a woman wearing clothes that were designed for women.  I don't dress provocatively...actually I have never had to....

in my experience...even with 'Christian' men, a woman is still viewed as an object in many cases rather then a person for whom Christ died.  Perhaps that log and

speck example Jesus gave still means something.

 

Perhaps those who think it is a sin for a woman to dress warm in winter should try wearing nylons and skirt themself while waiting for a bus or hailing a taxi or walking to school.

 

People who tell women how to dress are actively taking the part of God who simply tells women to dress modestly through the apostle Paul.

[Sevenseas]

 

Concerned Women For America is the largest women's group in America.  It is not my group.  They sent me a solicitation to raise money, and in it, they were condemning a book called "Jesse's Dream Skirt."  They represent a lot of Christian women in this country. 

 

If your position is we are not under the law, then nothing is unclean or wrong for a Christian.  We can do anything we please.  That means a brother could marry his sister.  It is the law of Moses that says that is wrong, and it is only recorded in the Old Testament.  If a man is a widower, he could in theory marry his daughter if the law doesn't matter.  The bottom line is, if I really believe what you are saying, Christians are 100 percent under grace, and free to live as they please.  Nothing they do can be wrong, because wrong doing is sin, a violation of the law.  You can't claim incest in marriage is wrong and then say that if we insist on keeping one law, we must keep them all.  I have explained how the law is comprised of 1 Ceremonial Laws  2  Laws concerning the Levitical Priesthood and 3 Moral laws, and only the moral laws apply today. 

 

 

 

I don't care about concerned women for America or the size of their organization.  People have yet to understand the day we are living in apparently or the fact that we are not wrestling against

flesh and blood.  

 

Is it harder to donate or is it harder to fall on your knees and intercede on behalf of the US that is spiraling downwards faster then water over Niagra Falls.  I will vouch it is much harder to intercede.

 

God is searching the minds and hearts of people.....not organizations who think they can combat iniquity with money and placards.  I have seen God do more for me personally in the last couple

of weeks through prayer, supplication and thanksgiving then any thing I have done personally in a physical sense.  God works and when He has something to show us, He pulls back the curtain

and says "See?  I have not forgotten you and I have your best interests in mind."

 

My position is that we are not under any laws save the law of grace and love.

 

God offers us His heart of love and He fills the vast emptiness of our own attempts at righteousness by giving us a new heart.

 

I have experienced His love and His forgiveness and I desire to obey.  I don't have to sacrifice myself or try to impress anyone.  God is holy...we, are simply not holy and no amount of trying

to earn our salvation will ever work.

 

That, is the wonderful truth of it all.  I can relax in God's perfect redemption, knowing, that if I do sin, I have forgiveness.  However, because of the new heart God has given me, I do not desire to sin

but I realize that in this present body I will sin.  

 

Perhaps you do not understand that living in sin, or living with unrepentant sin is not the same as one who is saved and yet may still sin...Paul, the Apostle Paul, certainly wrote about that.

 

Haven't your read that?  It could change your entire outlook!!!

[Sevenseas]

I have a question for both Sevenseas and Willamina, which I hope will go a long way towards clarifying both of your positions.  You have both gone to great lengths, especially Sevenseas, to attack keeping the law, and saying we aren't required to do so.  Sevenseas went so far as to call it an abomination to say there are portions of the law that apply and others that don't.  Here is what Deuteronomy 22:5 says.

 

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:  for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. 

 

Willamina went to great lengths to tell us of other laws she doesn't keep, and Sevenseas has been saying we aren't obligated to keep the law, period.  I have two questions for both of you if you are willing to give an honest answer.

 

1.  Do you acknowledge that if we were under the law of Moses, you could be technically violating this law?

 

2.  Since you both have indicated we are not under the law, does that mean it is now ok for a man to wear women's clothes and for a woman to wear clothes that pertain to a man? 

 

I would really appreciate honest answers, because that is the only way to get to what you really believe.  Thanks in advance. 

 

 

I don't wear men's clothes.  

 

Do you realize that this appears to be your only argument?

 

Here is truth Butero.

 

This am, while reading in the OT, I 'felt' very distinctly in my spirit, to go to the verse regarding clothing that you mention, and read it and really let the words sink in.

 

The conclusion I came to, is that the verse simply tells me that people were doing that very thing much as they are today.

 

I don't cross dress and I am not gender confused.  I have many dresses in my cubboard and not one of them has ever ascribed righteousness to me.

 

You do not understand the transaction Jesus made on our behalf at the cross my friend.  You really do not.

 

He took upon Himself every curse and every sin so that we do not have to pay the penalty that He paid.  He was cut off from God the Father so that we do not have to be cut off.

 

The obedience of water baptisim signifies my old man being put to death with Christ and my emergence from that water, into air and light, signifies my new life in Christ and symbolizes

the resurrection.

 

Put to death the old man.....have you done that?  If so, why are you trying to earn your salvation?

 

Oh, before I forget.  You see, the Holy Spirit knew all about your question and led me to have yet another look at this verse that you seem to hang so much on.

 

God often leads me in this way...and frankly, if we want to please Him and desire to walk in His truth and light, He will lead, in even simple things, because He loves us.

 

One of the biggest desires of my heart has always been to know Him, not as people try to represent Him, but as He truly is.  He is amazing.

 

 

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.  Romans 3:20

[Guest Butero]

First of all, I didn't edit any of your comments in that very long thread.  You didn't show a single example of my doing so, and until you do, I deny everything you claim in that regard.  Of course it wasn't a direct conversation.  I couldn't get the quote function to work, so I showed your comments and my responses.  It is obvious what I was doing.   

 

On to the clothing issue.  You didn't fully answer what I asked you.  I asked you 2 questions.  The first was whether or not you are saying that if we were under the law of Moses, is it possible you could be technically violating Deuteronomy 22:5?  I asked you that because most of your defense is to say you don't have to keep the law.  You kind of answered that question.  My other question is whether or not under the New Covenant, it is your opinion that a man or woman is free to wear clothes belonging to the opposite gender?  In other words, would it be ok if your husband borrowed one of your dresses for a night on the town?  I don't believe he would, but if he wanted to, under the New Covenant, would it be ok?  Would you be fine with wearing his pants and if he wore one of your dresses?  Would that be sinful, in your opinion?  Thanks in advance Sevenseas. 

 

BTW, everyone here does not believe what you do in regard to the law and grace.  I have read posts by Shiloh, and they are not close to yours.  I have read comments by people that don't agree with me at all, and they still don't mirror your views.  You only speak for yourself.  I only speak for myself. 

[Sevenseas]

I'm not defending anything Butero.

 

I am REFUTING your position.

 

Most people here believe what scripture teaches regarding Jesus bearing our sins on the cross.  They understand that we cannot earn our way into heaven by good behavior or keeping

selected parts of the law.  

 

Why would you think someone should mirror my views?  The funny thing is though, my views are expressed in scripture and the Bible speaks for itself.  It is actually your views concerning

your dress code that 'people' do not agree with...or did you forget that?

 

 

You know sometimes I wonder if you are just trying to be funny.  What strange scenerios you come up with.  They are not Christian and frankly I have to wonder if you don't just get your ideas from

"The Enquirer" while waiting in line at a grocery store.  

 

 

 

I asked you that because most of your defense is to say you don't have to keep the law

 

Actually, I have stated multiple times, along with others here...if not in this paricular thread then certainly in others at this site....that NO ONE can keep the law...including YOU...which is why

Christ died..

 

To say one does not 'have' to keep keep the law is misquoting what I said.  If you could actually use the quote feature and actually quote me verbatim, it would show that you just may have a disregard for

what a person actually states as I have the impression you are asking the type of question that you may believe will give you the answer you expect.  Sometimes I wonder if that might be because you actually do not have anything to say regarding the portions of scripture I have posted that demonstrate we cannot fulfill the law...only Jesus can and that is an accomplished fact.  I have never said we do 

not need to obey the law.  Never.  

 

On the other hand, the New Testament does declare that we are no longer under the law...we no longer have to fear it or live by it.  That is something that I l think you may have a problem

understanding and so you say I say we don't have to keep it; you are not understanding that we cannot keep it and that is why Christ died.

 

I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly, you have very rarely addressed scripture in my posts.  Rather you seem to want to discuss some sort of sexual sin or imaginary things that

never happened and never will and then you want me to answer you based on your imaginings.  If, in your wanderings over the face of this planet you have experienced all or even

just some of what you write, that still has no application in reality as it is subjective.  Further, I certainly have not thought about make believe adultery or cross dressing or any of those

things.  Further, the Bible does not encourage such thoughts.  If a person is so inclined, I believe the afternoon soap operas will fulfill that interest.  I don't watch those either

 

Didn't you read the part about baptism?  That is an ordinance that demonstrates our death to sin and new life in Christ.  We accept Christ's atonement through faith, not works.

 

Assuredly faith produces work simply because if you do believe on or in something, you will act upon it.  

 

 

 

 My other question is whether or not under the New Covenant, it is your opinion that a man or woman is free to wear clothes belonging to the opposite gender?  In other words, would it be ok if your husband borrowed one of your dresses for a night on the town?  I don't believe he would, but if he wanted to, under the New Covenant, would it be ok?

 

I have never been under the 'Old Covenant' and I have never been an Israelite.  I have never had an animal sacrificed on my behalf.  I have never worn the flowing robes the Israelites wore

nor has any human being, in any church, at any time, in any part of the world, adivised me, taught me or indicated to me or anyone in the thousands of people I have mingled with over

the years, that I would be sinning if I wore men's clothes.

 

Do you know why?  That would be because most folk do not yearn for the clothes worn by the opposite sex and so that has never ever been a problem.

 

 

 

A white washed seplechure is still a place of the dead.  Jesus walked out of the tomb.  I am dead to trespasses and sins IN Christ.  

 

I'll expalin it again and hope that you understand it this time.

 

God did not give the law to keep us from sinning.  He gave the law to point out sin.

 

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.  Romans 3:20

[Sevenseas]

 

 

It is obvious what I was doing.   

 

 

num.....ummm......uh huh.

[Guest Butero]

You still haven't answered anything I asked you Sevenseas.  Why?  They weren't hard questions.  I just asked you if based on your beliefs, it would be ok for a man or woman to wear clothes specifically designed for the opposite sex?  You said we are not under the law, period, so does that mean it would be ok for your husband to wear your dresses, assuming he was able based on size, and for you to wear his pants?  That is very simple Sevenseas. 

 

As to others believing as you do, I know they don't believe exactly as you do, so why do you keep claiming you speak for everyone?  You clearly don't.