Four Antilegalistic Strategies?

[OldSchool2]

I don't have my "own" version of the English language, or the Gospels -- that's why I defer to Merriam-Webster and even the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, which, IMO, was correct in its appraisal of anyone who advocates Lordship Salvation.

In the mid-1980s I produced a Cable-TV show in NYC about aberrational Christian movements -- I had practically memorized Larson's Book of Cults, but had never even heard of "Lordship Salvation" until I came to these forums. It's amazing how many posters here profess God's grace while "hedging their bets" with the leaven of legalism.

 

So, let me get this straight, and I hope you will correct me if I am wrong.  You do not believe in the following as true?

• Knowledge of the Facts—Faith must be based on the content of the Word of God.
• Assent to this Knowledge—A person must agree that the facts of Scripture are true.
• Repentance—There must be a turning from sin and turning towards God.
• Submission to Christ—There must be a subjection to the person and will of Christ with a desire and willingness to obey.

If the above is not true, how do you address salvation?  How does one become saved?

 

How do you address a "Catch-22"?

 

The Urban Dictionary defines a catch-22 as "a requirement that cannot be met until a prerequisite requirement is met, however, the prerequisite cannot be obtained until the original requirement is met."

In other words, to become "saved" in Lordship Salvation, you must already be saved -- as evidenced by some degree of sanctification, e.g., COP.

"The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..."

Yours is the absurd argument. How do you think multitudes of people were saved under the Old Covenant? ...

By faith, as was Abraham (Romans 4:3), "for by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight" (Romans 3:20), though you wouldn't think that by what Lordship Salvation preaches, e.g., "COP".

"The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..."

By faith in what and whom? that was my whole point, and you conveniently excerpted what you wanted to and ignored my real line of reason. You also failed to answer my question about the type of person posed. please answer and not deflect

Why do you have to ask such obvious questions when your answers can be found from the very context of the two references from Romans?

And if you can please place your "real line of reasoning" re Lordship Salvation into succinct, straight forward statements, I will attempt to address it.

Remember, "brevity is the soul of wit".

[ajchurney]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't have my "own" version of the English language, or the Gospels -- that's why I defer to Merriam-Webster and even the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, which, IMO, was correct in its appraisal of anyone who advocates Lordship Salvation.

In the mid-1980s I produced a Cable-TV show in NYC about aberrational Christian movements -- I had practically memorized Larson's Book of Cults, but had never even heard of "Lordship Salvation" until I came to these forums. It's amazing how many posters here profess God's grace while "hedging their bets" with the leaven of legalism.

 

So, let me get this straight, and I hope you will correct me if I am wrong.  You do not believe in the following as true?

• Knowledge of the Facts—Faith must be based on the content of the Word of God.
• Assent to this Knowledge—A person must agree that the facts of Scripture are true.
• Repentance—There must be a turning from sin and turning towards God.
• Submission to Christ—There must be a subjection to the person and will of Christ with a desire and willingness to obey.

If the above is not true, how do you address salvation?  How does one become saved?

 

 

How do you address a "Catch-22"?

 

The Urban Dictionary defines a catch-22 as "a requirement that cannot be met until a prerequisite requirement is met, however, the prerequisite cannot be obtained until the original requirement is met."

In other words, to become "saved" in Lordship Salvation, you must already be saved -- as evidenced by some degree of sanctification, e.g., COP.

"The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..."

 

Yours is the absurd argument. How do you think multitudes of people were saved under the Old Covenant? ...

 

By faith, as was Abraham (Romans 4:3), "for by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight" (Romans 3:20), though you wouldn't think that by what Lordship Salvation preaches, e.g., "COP".

"The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..."

 

By faith in what and whom? that was my whole point, and you conveniently excerpted what you wanted to and ignored my real line of reason. You also failed to answer my question about the type of person posed. please answer and not deflect

 

Why do you have to ask such obvious questions when your answers can be found from the very context of the two references from Romans?

And if you can please place your "real line of reasoning" re Lordship Salvation into succinct, straight forward statements, I will attempt to address it.

Remember, "brevity is the soul of wit".

 

I did already. I am done wasting time even trying to discuss with you, as it is like talking to a brick wall with opinions indelibly written on it. I pray the eyes of your understanding are opened, as I pray the same for myself. I am not interested in being witty, just trying to walk in Spirit and truth. Bless you, but I am done.

[OldSchool2]

I don't have my "own" version of the English language, or the Gospels -- that's why I defer to Merriam-Webster and even the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, which, IMO, was correct in its appraisal of anyone who advocates Lordship Salvation.

In the mid-1980s I produced a Cable-TV show in NYC about aberrational Christian movements -- I had practically memorized Larson's Book of Cults, but had never even heard of "Lordship Salvation" until I came to these forums. It's amazing how many posters here profess God's grace while "hedging their bets" with the leaven of legalism.

 

So, let me get this straight, and I hope you will correct me if I am wrong.  You do not believe in the following as true?

• Knowledge of the Facts—Faith must be based on the content of the Word of God.
• Assent to this Knowledge—A person must agree that the facts of Scripture are true.
• Repentance—There must be a turning from sin and turning towards God.
• Submission to Christ—There must be a subjection to the person and will of Christ with a desire and willingness to obey.

If the above is not true, how do you address salvation?  How does one become saved?

 

How do you address a "Catch-22"?

 

The Urban Dictionary defines a catch-22 as "a requirement that cannot be met until a prerequisite requirement is met, however, the prerequisite cannot be obtained until the original requirement is met."

In other words, to become "saved" in Lordship Salvation, you must already be saved -- as evidenced by some degree of sanctification, e.g., COP.

"The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..."

Yours is the absurd argument. How do you think multitudes of people were saved under the Old Covenant? ...

By faith, as was Abraham (Romans 4:3), "for by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight" (Romans 3:20), though you wouldn't think that by what Lordship Salvation preaches, e.g., "COP".

"The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..."

By faith in what and whom? that was my whole point, and you conveniently excerpted what you wanted to and ignored my real line of reason. You also failed to answer my question about the type of person posed. please answer and not deflect

Why do you have to ask such obvious questions when your answers can be found from the very context of the two references from Romans?

And if you can please place your "real line of reasoning" re Lordship Salvation into succinct, straight forward statements, I will attempt to address it.

Remember, "brevity is the soul of wit".

I did already. I am done wasting time even trying to discuss with you, as it is like talking to a brick wall with opinions indelibly written on it. I pray the eyes of your understanding are opened, as I pray the same for myself. I am not interested in being witty, just trying to walk in Spirit and truth. Bless you, but I am done.

Christians have walked that walk without the crutch of Lordship Salvation for 2,000 years.

Via con dios.

[OldSchool2]

Lordship Salvation vs. Sanctification

"The holiness we are to exhibit is not our own, but the holiness of Christ in us. We are not holy, and we will not become holy humans. Christ in us can manifest His holiness if we will yield our flesh to Him. This is not a human operation; it is a spiritual one. Jesus installs His holiness in us by grace. Not a once-for-all-time transaction; this is a daily, moment-by-moment striving to live more by the Spirit and less by the flesh.

"Becoming holy is a process which includes God’s part and our part. On one hand, our part is to stay out of God’s part—to yield, to surrender, to stop seeking God on our own terms. But our part is also to obey. It is to enter His rehabilitation program. We have no more power to make ourselves holy than a dying man has to save himself. We are weak and tired, and we cannot offer much help. However, we can submit to His rehabilitation program—sanctification. The key to our part is faith—to seek Him in obedience."

Patrick Morley

http://triplethescraps.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html

To seek God in obedience is not the same as works of obedience or any other of the so-called COP prerequisites of Lordship Salvation.
 

[Sevenseas]

To Sevenseas, Clothing issues are sin issues.  Deuteronomy 22:5 calls it an abomination for a woman to wear what pertains to a man or for a man to put on a woman's garment.  That makes it a sin issue.  1 Corinthians 6:9 mentions that a man who is effeminate is not going to inherit the Kingdom of heaven, and in the definition, it mentions soft or feminine clothes, so the concept is repeated in the New Testament.  Some clothing choices are just a matter of taste, but others are not.  That is how I can look at a woman in pants or a man in a dress and conclude they are in sin.  I know what I said to Nebula, and I stand by it, but I also continue to stand by my statement that what you said was nowhere close to my position. 

 

I explained my position with regard to the law.  I explained how there are 3 different types of laws, and only the moral laws apply to us today.  A man dressing in clothes of a woman and vice versa is based on a moral law.  The law does not cleanse from sin, and I never claimed it did.  Violating God's standard of holiness will defile a person. 

 

If I understand your position correctly, if you have a church, and in this church, you have a man who cheats on his wife on a regular basis, and another man who is faithful to his spouse, they are both equally holy in the sight of God if they prayed a sinner's prayer.  You can have one man who steals from the church treasury, and another who occasionally slips and loses his temper, and in your world, both men are equal in the sight of God if they said a sinner's prayer.  You make no distinction between a willful transgressor and someone who tries to live right but occasionally messes up.  I don't believe like that.  If I did, I couldn't ever say anything about any sin, because it is all law.  Paul owes those people in the church at Corinth an apology for turning them over to Satan.  That was judgmental, and God doesn't even see the sins of believers.  You may claim I am changing the subject, but I am not.  Again, in some cases, outward appearance can be sinful, so I am comparing one sin to another, because you claim they are all the same. 

 

That is not what I said or even hinted at.  Your statement has nothing to do with what I wrote. 

 

You seem to want to try and apply grace through the dirty filter of sexual sin and that is not grace nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with what I wrote.  My mind does not wander

to perversity or sexual sin when I think about the grace of God.

 

The discussion was on appearance...not the appearance of evil.

 

Why can't you seem to be able to make that separation?  

 

The real abomination is saying that God's provision is not enough and we have to somehow keep parts of the law but not all of the law.

 

Romans spells out the message very clearly.

 

Romans 7 tells us that the law is spiritual, but yet here you are condemning women everywhere who do not dress according to you own personal belief.

 

Don't you know what Romans 8 states?

 

1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did:sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

 

The law of sin and of death is the one you are trying so hard to keep and tell others that they need to keep it!  

 

Read Romans!  The law was given to point out sin...no one can keep it...the law cannot make us holy before God...Read it above!  What the law could not do, God did for us by sending His own Son!

 

You have no purpose in condemning others.  You are judging exactly the way we are told not to judge.  

 

And you are right...it is your position...not God's position and not the position of anyone who understands the book of Romans.

 

I would not even answer you again, yet, you are once again telling all women everywhere,  that if they do not wear a dress, they are sinning.

 

That, in your opinion jeopardizes their salvation.  However, I, as a born again Christian, filled with the Holy Spirit, who lives a new life in Christ, am controlled by the Spirit of God who dwells within

me and NOT by my sinful nature...Romans 8:9

 

This same chapter tells us that those who try to keep the law are actually slaves to sin because the law is, in effect, a boundary around sin...it pronounces sin as sin and no one is exempt.

 

Your words have no hope and they are not a part of the gospel.  They are part of the law that was fulfilled in Christ and not a part of those who are in Christ Jesus.  And if or any other woman,

are in Christ Jesus, then we are apart from the law and we are not judged or condemned.

 

I am sorry to say that I do not believe you have a grasp of the meaning of the book of Romans.

 

I am no longer under condemnation but people who are legalistic continually try to condemn others when God says there is  NO condemnation to those who are in Christ.

 

Your idea of keeping the law is legalistic according to scripture and according to the book of Romans you are actually giving sin an expression in trying to keep the law.

 

The law never saved anyone.

 

Romans 8:12-16:

 

So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him

 

The Bible is my foundation and I am building my house on the solid rock...not some idea of holiness provided by what a person wears.

 

The only mention of how we dress in the NT, is that we should be modest.  

 

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

 

FYI....as an aside, you may be personally insulted by women wearing slacks, jeans or whatever, but it has no connection to an effeminate man.  I am not confused, my husband is not

confused and I am postive that God is not insulted or confused with what I wear either.  If a woman is pretty, a man will often oggle her even if she has a sack on that shows absolutely

nothing of what goes on past her neck.  I know that from personal experience.  The bigger problem it seems to me, are men who make laws so that they can blame women when their

thoughts go sidewise....understand that is not a personal application, but in my experience, a pertinent application

[Guest Butero]

BUTERO:  To Sevenseas, Clothing issues are sin issues.  Deuteronomy 22:5 calls it an abomination for a woman to wear what pertains to a man or for a man to put on a woman's garment.  That makes it a sin issue.  1 Corinthians 6:9 mentions that a man who is effeminate is not going to inherit the Kingdom of heaven, and in the definition, it mentions soft or feminine clothes, so the concept is repeated in the New Testament.  Some clothing choices are just a matter of taste, but others are not.  That is how I can look at a woman in pants or a man in a dress and conclude they are in sin.  I know what I said to Nebula, and I stand by it, but I also continue to stand by my statement that what you said was nowhere close to my position. 

 

 

I explained my position with regard to the law.  I explained how there are 3 different types of laws, and only the moral laws apply to us today.  A man dressing in clothes of a woman and vice versa is based on a moral law.  The law does not cleanse from sin, and I never claimed it did.  Violating God's standard of holiness will defile a person. 

 

If I understand your position correctly, if you have a church, and in this church, you have a man who cheats on his wife on a regular basis, and another man who is faithful to his spouse, they are both equally holy in the sight of God if they prayed a sinner's prayer.  You can have one man who steals from the church treasury, and another who occasionally slips and loses his temper, and in your world, both men are equal in the sight of God if they said a sinner's prayer.  You make no distinction between a willful transgressor and someone who tries to live right but occasionally messes up.  I don't believe like that.  If I did, I couldn't ever say anything about any sin, because it is all law.  Paul owes those people in the church at Corinth an apology for turning them over to Satan.  That was judgmental, and God doesn't even see the sins of believers.  You may claim I am changing the subject, but I am not.  Again, in some cases, outward appearance can be sinful, so I am comparing one sin to another, because you claim they are all the same. 

 

SEVENSEAS: That is not what I said or even hinted at.  Your statement has nothing to do with what I wrote. 

 

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? 

 

SEVENSEAS:  You seem to want to try and apply grace through the dirty filter of sexual sin and that is not grace nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with what I wrote.  My mind does not wander

to perversity or sexual sin when I think about the grace of God.

 

BUTERO:  Nothing you just said indicates in any way I got your positions wrong.  You only said that you didn't talk about those things in this thread. 

 

SEVENSEAS:  The discussion was on appearance...not the appearance of evil.

 

Why can't you seem to be able to make that separation?

 

BUTERO:  I can understand why you might want to limit the scope of the argument, but this is all necessary in order to show what you really believe about grace.    

 

SEVENSEAS:The real abomination is saying that God's provision is not enough and we have to somehow keep parts of the law but not all of the law.

 

BUTERO:  An abomination is what God says it is, not what you say. 

 

SEVENSEAS:  Romans spells out the message very clearly.

 

Romans 7 tells us that the law is spiritual, but yet here you are condemning women everywhere who do not dress according to you own personal belief.

 

BUTERO:  I am not condemning anyone.  I am interpreting scripture and showing how it applies in certain instances.  This is no different than how Concerned Women For America state that a book called "Jesse's Dream Skirt" promotes a boy dressing like a girl, even though the boy was wearing a skirt made for him, not one bought in the women's section of a store.  There is no difference in a boy in a skirt or a girl in pants.  Both are in violation of Deuteronomy 22:5, and pointing this out is not condemning anyone.  It is stating a fact.

 

SEVENSEAS:  Don't you know what Romans 8 states?

 

1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did:sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

 

BUTERO:   The key here is it is speaking of those who walk in the Spirit.  That is because those who walk in the Spirit don't break God's moral laws.  This is also seen in Galatians chapter 5.  Notice what it says in verses 22 through 25.

 

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance:  against such there is no law.  And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.  If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 

 

The Spirit will automatically lead us to do right.  Notice what it says in Galatians 5:18 about the law.

 

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 

 

If you are not being led of the Spirit, you are walking according to the works of the flesh, and then you are under the law.  It remains to show you your error, and the consequences of that error.  Look at verses 19 through 21.

 

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like:  of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 

 

If our behavior has nothing to do with our salvation, and if some laws don't apply, exactly as I said, then this entire passage is a lie, because it shows that sinful behavior will keep us out of heaven. 

 

SEVENSEAS:  The law of sin and of death is the one you are trying so hard to keep and tell others that they need to keep it!  

 

BUTERO:  Absolutely not.  I am choosing to walk in the Spirit, which means I won't violate God's laws.  Those who are breaking God's laws are the ones who are under the law. 

 

SEVENSEAS:  Read Romans!  The law was given to point out sin...no one can keep it...the law cannot make us holy before God...Read it above!  What the law could not do, God did for us by sending His own Son!

 

BUTERO:  The law can't make us holy because nobody can keep it in absolute perfection, but that doesn't give us a license to sin.  Continuing to commit willful sin will defile our spiritual garments that were once washed clean by the blood of Jesus, and that will cause us to forfeit our inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven. 

 

SEVENSEAS:  You have no purpose in condemning others.  You are judging exactly the way we are told not to judge.  

 

BUTERO:  I am doing no such thing.  I am simply applying scripture to the culture. 

 

SEVENSEAS:  And you are right...it is your position...not God's position and not the position of anyone who understands the book of Romans.

 

BUTERO:  It is not surprising to me that you don't think I understand the book of Romans, a book I have read over and over and over again, and taken a great deal of time to study.  I don't believe you understand the book of Romans, nor do I think anyone that sees it the way you do understands the book of Romans.  Doesn't that stand to reason, lest we would agree? 

 

SEVENSEAS:  I would not even answer you again, yet, you are once again telling all women everywhere,  that if they do not wear a dress, they are sinning.

 

BUTERO:  Nothing you have said changes anything.  Just as Concerned Women For America claim a boy in a skirt is going against scripture, I am saying a woman who wears pants is going against scripture.  You could come back 100 more times to say I am wrong, and nothing will change.  I will still say it is a sin for women to wear pants. 

 

SEVENSEAS:  That, in your opinion jeopardizes their salvation.  However, I, as a born again Christian, filled with the Holy Spirit, who lives a new life in Christ, am controlled by the Spirit of God who dwells within

me and NOT by my sinful nature...Romans 8:9

 

BUTERO:  Yes, it is my positions that doing something the Bible calls an abomination will jeopardize your salvation. 

 

SEVENSEAS:  This same chapter tells us that those who try to keep the law are actually slaves to sin because the law is, in effect, a boundary around sin...it pronounces sin as sin and no one is exempt.

 

BUTERO:  It says no such thing.  The Bible teaches that if we try to save ourselves by keeping the law outside of Christ, it won't work, but it doesn't say those who try to keep God's laws are a slave to sin. 

 

SEVENSEAS:  Your words have no hope and they are not a part of the gospel.  They are part of the law that was fulfilled in Christ and not a part of those who are in Christ Jesus.  And if or any other woman,

are in Christ Jesus, then we are apart from the law and we are not judged or condemned.

 

BUTERO:  My words have no hope to disobedient children.  If people will accept Christ, and walk in the Spirit, which means they will keep God's moral laws, they will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  If you or any other man or woman walk after the lusts of the flesh by sinning, they are under the law and both judged of God and eventually condemned.  It is those who walk in the Spirit that are not under the law. 

 

SEVENSEAS:  I am sorry to say that I do not believe you have a grasp of the meaning of the book of Romans.

 

BUTERO:  I am not sorry you feel that way, because I don't believe you understand the book of Romans, otherwise we would be in agreement. 

 

SEVENSEAS:  I am no longer under condemnation but people who are legalistic continually try to condemn others when God says there is  NO condemnation to those who are in Christ.

 

Your idea of keeping the law is legalistic according to scripture and according to the book of Romans you are actually giving sin an expression in trying to keep the law.

 

BUTERO:  There is no scripture that even mentions the word legalistic, so that is obviously false.  Romans doesn't come close to teaching what you are. 

 

SEVENSEAS:  The law never saved anyone.

 

BUTERO:  That is true, but there are a lot of people in hell that got there by violating the law. 

 

SEVENSEAS:  Romans 8:12-16:

 

So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him

 

BUTERO:  Right.  When we walk in the Spirit, we are not under the law.  The Spirit won't lead us to break the law.  Galatians 5:16

 

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 

 

Galatians 5:18  But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

 

Those who continue in willful sin are not walking in the Spirit. 

 

SEVENSEAS:  The Bible is my foundation and I am building my house on the solid rock...not some idea of holiness provided by what a person wears.

 

BUTERO:  If you don't understand the Bible, it doesn't matter if you claim it for your foundation.  What we wear does matter, and even Christian women will take positions about appearance.  If a man wears a dress, look how Christian women react.  If women wear clothing they believe is too revealing, look how Christian women react. 

 

SEVENSEAS:  The only mention of how we dress in the NT, is that we should be modest.  

 

BUTERO:  The only time you will find teachings against a brother marrying his sister is in the Old Testament.  The same thing would apply to a Mother marrying her son or a Father marrying his daughter.  Does that mean these things are ok?  Of course not, because we know how God feels about it from the Old Testament.  Deuteronomy 22:5 makes it clear God doesn't want men or women wearing clothing that pertains to the opposite sex.

 

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

 

BUTERO:  You shouldn't make assumptions. 

 

SEVENSEAS:  FYI....as an aside, you may be personally insulted by women wearing slacks, jeans or whatever, but it has no connection to an effeminate man.  I am not confused, my husband is not

confused and I am postive that God is not insulted or confused with what I wear either.  If a woman is pretty, a man will often oggle her even if she has a sack on that shows absolutely

nothing of what goes on past her neck.  I know that from personal experience.  The bigger problem it seems to me, are men who make laws so that they can blame women when their

thoughts go sidewise....understand that is not a personal application, but in my experience, a pertinent application

 

BUTERO:  The word effeminate includes men who wear soft or feminine clothing.  Of course there is a connection.  God wants men to look like men and for women to look like women.  He wants men to wear clothing that looks masculine and for women to wear clothing that looks feminine.  Even Christian women will acknowledge that when it comes to men.  In the book "Jesse's Dream Skirt" that Concerned Women For America have condemned, a little girl defends Jesse's skirt by pointing out that she wears pants. 

 

[GoldenEagle]

 

BUTERO:  To Sevenseas, Clothing issues are sin issues.  Deuteronomy 22:5 calls it an abomination for a woman to wear what pertains to a man or for a man to put on a woman's garment.  That makes it a sin issue.  1 Corinthians 6:9 mentions that a man who is effeminate is not going to inherit the Kingdom of heaven, and in the definition, it mentions soft or feminine clothes, so the concept is repeated in the New Testament.  Some clothing choices are just a matter of taste, but others are not.  That is how I can look at a woman in pants or a man in a dress and conclude they are in sin.  I know what I said to Nebula, and I stand by it, but I also continue to stand by my statement that what you said was nowhere close to my position. 

 

 

I explained my position with regard to the law.  I explained how there are 3 different types of laws, and only the moral laws apply to us today.  A man dressing in clothes of a woman and vice versa is based on a moral law.  The law does not cleanse from sin, and I never claimed it did.  Violating God's standard of holiness will defile a person. 

 

.....

 

 

 

Wow, this is incredibly long...

[GoldenEagle]

Lordship Salvation vs. Sanctification

"The holiness we are to exhibit is not our own, but the holiness of Christ in us. We are not holy, and we will not become holy humans. Christ in us can manifest His holiness if we will yield our flesh to Him. This is not a human operation; it is a spiritual one. Jesus installs His holiness in us by grace. Not a once-for-all-time transaction; this is a daily, moment-by-moment striving to live more by the Spirit and less by the flesh.

"Becoming holy is a process which includes God’s part and our part. On one hand, our part is to stay out of God’s part—to yield, to surrender, to stop seeking God on our own terms. But our part is also to obey. It is to enter His rehabilitation program. We have no more power to make ourselves holy than a dying man has to save himself. We are weak and tired, and we cannot offer much help. However, we can submit to His rehabilitation program—sanctification. The key to our part is faith—to seek Him in obedience."

Patrick Morley

http://triplethescraps.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html

To seek God in obedience is not the same as works of obedience or any other of the so-called COP prerequisites of Lordship Salvation.

 

Possible to start a new thread on the subject of lordship salvation?

[GoldenEagle]

Read this today and thought of this thread:

Such love has no fear, because perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear of punishment, and this shows that we have not fully experienced his perfect love. 1 John 4:18

[OldSchool2]

Lordship Salvation vs. Sanctification

"The holiness we are to exhibit is not our own, but the holiness of Christ in us. We are not holy, and we will not become holy humans. Christ in us can manifest His holiness if we will yield our flesh to Him. This is not a human operation; it is a spiritual one. Jesus installs His holiness in us by grace. Not a once-for-all-time transaction; this is a daily, moment-by-moment striving to live more by the Spirit and less by the flesh.

"Becoming holy is a process which includes God’s part and our part. On one hand, our part is to stay out of God’s part—to yield, to surrender, to stop seeking God on our own terms. But our part is also to obey. It is to enter His rehabilitation program. We have no more power to make ourselves holy than a dying man has to save himself. We are weak and tired, and we cannot offer much help. However, we can submit to His rehabilitation program—sanctification. The key to our part is faith—to seek Him in obedience."

Patrick Morley

http://triplethescraps.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html

To seek God in obedience is not the same as works of obedience or any other of the so-called COP prerequisites of Lordship Salvation.

Possible to start a new thread on the subject of lordship salvation?

I'm hoping it ends here, but I suspect that this latest legalism will again rear its head on these forums in the near future.