Four Antilegalistic Strategies?

[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

[Fez]

To Fez.  By all means, continue to stand in freedom.  I plan to remain free too, and walk in the liberty whereby I am able to abstain from sinful lusts that once held me bound. 

Sorry, just saw this reply, I have been lax in checking replies. I guess most practicing believers abstain from the sinful lusts that once bound us. It's just that many do it unbound from law and and in the freedom that is Christ?  

[Willa]

Butero, I do not have a parapet or any sort of safety railing around my roof as Deut. 22:8 prescribes, and I also wear cotton blends which is condemned by Deut. 22:11, and I do not have tassels on the corners of my coat as required in Deut. 22:12. Are you also guilty of any of these things? Gal. 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them". Rather, Gal. 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if rightneousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.

On the other hand I do find it offensive to find men on the web recommending my favorite nylon under panties as the ones they prefer.

They are created for a woman's shape and to be worn by women. My jeans and slacks are created for a womans shape and to be worn by women as well.. I have never dressed for the purpose of impersonating a man or even to look or feel like a man, which I suspect is the intent of the law.

But I do find it cruel and inhumane to expect women to wear dresses in windy 20 to 50 degrees below 0 weather. Try wearing mens knee length gym shorts in that weather to learn what I am talking about. Even in the 50s my mom would make me wear snow suit pants under my dress when I walked to school in even 5 degree weather. There again I was wearing pants.

Have you ever watched women bend over to do gardening, to pick up a toddler or to make beds while wearing a dress?. It is very eye catching and usually immodest even when the dresses hit below the knee. Therefore it would not comply with New Testament recommendations of dressing modestly.

Common sense is needed. The law makes strong recommendations as to what pleases God for us today who are under grace. But we are not bound by them, and we defenitely should not condemn others because of them. Jesus did not even do that. John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Blessings,

Willa

[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

[Sevenseas]

 

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. 

 

 

 

I'm a Christian woman and I don't always agree with you, but when I do, it would not be with this answer.

 

I doubt you have much of an idea about what Christian women acknowledge...perhaps you are familar with your own small group, but they are not indicative of Christian women in general, nor

Christian men either.

 

You are assuming things here.  You might say you guess or perhaps you think....but you cannot answer for all Christian women outside of your little group.

 

 

 

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.

 

Are you asking?  No, those things are not ok.  So, if you didn't believe in keeping only PARTS of the law, would you think it was ok to marry your sister?

 

and 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.

 

The law was given to point out sin and it seems to be working in some cases.  However, if we are in Christ Jesus, we are dead to sin and alive to Christ

[Guest]

....place your "real line of reasoning" re Lordship Salvation....

 

 

Lordship

 

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Matthew 6:10

 

Salvation

 

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

 

For Jesus

 

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:15

 

Is LORD

 

Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Jude 1:24-25

 

I See

 

For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Philippians 2:13

[Guest Butero]

 

 

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. 

[Guest Butero]

Butero, I do not have a parapet or any sort of safety railing around my roof as Deut. 22:8 prescribes, and I also wear cotton blends which is condemned by Deut. 22:11, and I do not have tassels on the corners of my coat as required in Deut. 22:12. Are you also guilty of any of these things? Gal. 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them". Rather, Gal. 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if rightneousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.

On the other hand I do find it offensive to find men on the web recommending my favorite nylon under panties as the ones they prefer.

They are created for a woman's shape and to be worn by women. My jeans and slacks are created for a womans shape and to be worn by women as well.. I have never dressed for the purpose of impersonating a man or even to look or feel like a man, which I suspect is the intent of the law.

But I do find it cruel and inhumane to expect women to wear dresses in windy 20 to 50 degrees below 0 weather. Try wearing mens knee length gym shorts in that weather to learn what I am talking about. Even in the 50s my mom would make me wear snow suit pants under my dress when I walked to school in even 5 degree weather. There again I was wearing pants.

Have you ever watched women bend over to do gardening, to pick up a toddler or to make beds while wearing a dress?. It is very eye catching and usually immodest even when the dresses hit below the knee. Therefore it would not comply with New Testament recommendations of dressing modestly.

Common sense is needed. The law makes strong recommendations as to what pleases God for us today who are under grace. But we are not bound by them, and we defenitely should not condemn others because of them. Jesus did not even do that. John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Blessings,

Willa

I have already addressed all those things from the law of Moses.  Some of the laws were concerning separation of the Jews from the idol worshipping gentile nations around them, such as mixing wool and flax in a garment.  Concerned Women For America have had no problem attacking a little boy wearing a skirt made for him by his Mother, and saying this was teaching him to wear clothing that pertains to the opposite sex.  Until the middle of the 20th century, women wore dresses and skirts nearly all the time, so making it out like this is some kind of cruel and unusual burden is absurd.  There isn't a single new argument you have brought to the table.  I stand by my position. 

 

BTW, if you really believe as you claim about the law, and if one is expected to keep one law, they have to keep it all, how do you explain Paul turning someone over to Satan for violation of the law?  Wasn't the law done away with? 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

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. 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

I'm a Christian woman and I don't always agree with you, but when I do, it would not be with this answer.

 

I doubt you have much of an idea about what Christian women acknowledge...perhaps you are familar with your own small group, but they are not indicative of Christian women in general, nor

Christian men either.

 

You are assuming things here.  You might say you guess or perhaps you think....but you cannot answer for all Christian women outside of your little group.

 

 

 

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.

 

Are you asking?  No, those things are not ok.  So, if you didn't believe in keeping only PARTS of the law, would you think it was ok to marry your sister?

 

and 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.

 

The law was given to point out sin and it seems to be working in some cases.  However, if we are in Christ Jesus, we are dead to sin and alive to Christ

 

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.