intersting article in legalism in the church

[Guest Biblicist]

[artsylady]

I see where you're coming from, but I see the opposite happening over and over.

I see people sharing what THEY believe (not saying others have to agree) and we see people getting all defensive and attacking the person for sharing THEIR convictions and saying the person is laying guilt and a bunch of other baloney.

What happens is, we have someone who shares THEIR convictions and people come unglued and we see their rebellious flesh rise, even though the person isn't telling ANYONE else to adhere to their convictions, we see people getting defensive.

As long as you are not imposing or judging others, then I don't see a problem with thinking whatever you want. But in response, stating why I do not think wearing pants is sinful and making a case for that is not wrong either. Is it? Why do you call it defensive?

Now, if you'll look over the closed thread on women and pants, you will see exactly that. Someone posted that THEIR belief was that women should not wear pants. NO PLACE did that person ever say that anyone else had to believe the same, but we saw vicious attacks, false allegations and putrid displays of flesh because people for defensive. I personally believe they got convicted and rebelled, but that just my opinion.

No one laid any guilt. No one placed any chains of bondage and no one forced their beliefs. NO ONE judged another woman for wearing pants, that is an out and out lie.

What is a lie?

What we saw was people stringing up someone for sharing THEIR own convictions.

That is the real problem. Not legalism, but rather people not being given the grace to share their own convictions without being accused of lies and watching people let their defensive flesh rule over the grace to share differing convictions.

What's this about lies?

To me, the legalist is one who believes something extraneous to the Bible and then judges others because of it. If you feel that something is a sin and don't judge others for it, then to me, you are not a legalist. I was merely giving an example of what I beleived a legalist to be, and stated that instead of judging, pray for them.

From dictionary.com

le

[artsylady]

Okay everyone, for the sake of this discussion, I will use the example of the Christian who believes women should not wear skirts as an example.

Some people are so defensive and their flesh SO in control that they are creating this argument and arguing against it! Again, that could be indicative of a stronghold in that person's life where they elevate their attire over humbly laying it down for G-d.

I used an example of what I believe a legalist to be. Someone who has strict adherance and judges others for it. Did I point to anyone in particular? I didn't even read the "should women wear pants to church" thread, and can't keep track of people's opinions on it and was just using this as an example. Now you're saying I have a stronghold?

And besides, you say that while you believe it to be a sin, (whatever it may be), how do you NOT speak to your brother or sister?

If you think your sister is committing adultry, (a sin) do you approach her? Do you pray for her?

If you think your sister is involved in stealing (a sin) do you approach her? Do you pray for her?

If you see your sister wearing pants to church (what you believe to be a sin) what do you do? I am just asking the question. Please do not jump all over me. It's just a question.

You see, here's what i'm thinking. If you see someone else in sin, you are supposed to pray for them, supposed to approach them.

I suppose I could see your viewpoint, it's a sin for me but not for them, in certain situations. Like, if you were an alcoholic and struggled with alcohol, it would be a sin for you to have a glass of wine, but for someone else, you may think it's not a sin for someone who does not have your history.

I didn't keep up much with the women /pants discussion, and if there are the same kinds of personal reasons why you feel that for you, wearing pants to church is a sin, then that is fine.

But if you think it's a sin just because it's a sin, then it's a sin for everyone, not just you.

But, the point is, that's not what was said, in any way shape or form, but we saw the defensive and disgusting attacks come out at the THOUGHT of someone not wearing their precious, beloved pants. Now, that's something to worry about.

Are you referring to me? If yes, I find this very, very bizarre and uncalled for if it is. I'm trying to have a meaningful conversation and have judged no one and if the example I used offended you so deeply I'm sorry.

[artsylady]

Not one person, including myself that has posted in this thread is attempting in anyway to state that laying down our selves/lives for one another is the issue. We are taking issue with those debatable things though that are said to be stumbling blocks and huge yolks of unnecessary rules because certain members of the church take personal issue with what people are doing...instead of minding their own business they are setting up stumbling blocks for themselves, building traps by their own hands that they will fall into by their own words and works....Jesus came to put a stop to that stuff over 2000 yrs ago, yet the people were blind to it...and as we know history repeats itself and here we are "civilized" people still thinking and acting like the Pharisee.

I agree. All Christians should adhere strictly to the laws of God.

A legalist, in my opinion, is NOT one strictly adheres to the law because all Christians should do that. If that is the only definition, we are all legalists.

Do I quote scripture to those who may say adultry is okay or homosexuality is okay so that they will see that it is sin? Yes. Do I quote scripture to those who say homosexuality is okay so that they will see that it is sin? Yes. Do I quote scripture to those who lack LOVE to others to see that this is sin? Yes. Do I quote scripture to thoe who think that cross dressing is okay, so that they will see it as a sin? Yes.

Do I quote scripture to those who may think that wearing pants to church is a sin so that they will see it as a sin? No, because I do not see this in scripture at all.

But I am not what I call a legalist because where the scripture isn't clear on something, I don't make it out to be a law of God - for myself or for anyone else.

[artsylady]

Are there any 'silly little rules' we disagree on?

Unfortunely there are probably lots of them. They are all over the board all the time and keep coming back again and again.

Anything that is not clearly defined in the bible as sin, would be defined as a silly little rule.

As stated before, if there was a thread entitled "Adultry - is it wrong?" we wouldn't be debating it because it's quite clear that it's wrong. There would be a bunch of votes for yes, followed by scripture that clearly says what it means, followed by a bunch of amens and the thread would die out quickly.

Herein lies the difference between a legalist and a non legalist , imo- the legalist will say it's wrong when it's not obvious at all.

[artsylady]

I am wondering what Paul meant by this statement.

Galatians 6

9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.

To the strict legalist, the scripture may read, let us not grow weary from not playing cards, not going to a movie, wearing skirts and keeping other laws.

To the non legalist, it will mean, let us not grow weary from helping widows and the poor, witnessing of Christ's love, being a servant to other, keeping the commandments and laws.

2 Thess 3

13 But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good. 14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

To the strict legalist, the scripture may read, let us not grow weary from not playing cards, not going to a movie, wearing skirts and keeping the laws. And if a person is playing careds, don't count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

To the non legalist, it will mean, let us not grow weary from helping widows and the poor, witnessing of Christ's love, being a servant to other, keeping the commandments and laws. And if anyone is lazy and disregardful of these things, don't call him an enemy but admonish him as a brother.

[artsylady]

shorts that are almost as short as underwear, hipster jeans, bellies showing, and cleavage baring is also a bit much.

I missed where Jackie said she wears hipster jeans with her belly button showing and cleavage baring tops.

No one is going to argue with you about modest dress. Why? Because it's in the scriptures - plain and clear for all to read and obvious to understand.

[artsylady]

I love my brother too, but if I have to walk through life worrying that my jeans are going to make some man sin then it is the man that needs to change not me.

The man that is going to lust after her for wearing jeans will also lust after her if she's wearing a skirt.

[artsylady]

I don't think the word relativism is in the Bible, nor do I think the word "Trinity" is in the Bible. No is the 'sinners prayer'. But these are concepts we know are in the Word.

Legalism seems to be encompassed in these verses, which seem to have gone pretty much ignored.

The Biblical writer felt the need to include these though.

Col 2:20 Therefore,[fn5] if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations.

Col 2:21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,"

Col 2:22 which all concern things which perish with the using--according to the commandments and doctrines of men?

Col 2:23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

What would be examples of these kinds of 'rules"? I am very interested to know what others think.

[artsylady]

Your argument is not logical, or Biblical.

Neither is the argument that pants cause men to lust and skirts don't. The words "skirt" and "pants" are not in the Bible.

"Modest" is.

You are barking up the wrong tree. I'm not sure if it was you but someone is not even arguing fairly here because they've added the part about low rise, belly button showing and cleavage showing to the mix - very unfair. We could say things like 'mini skirt" or 'tight skirt" but don't stoop.

Do a survery - ask men what is more 'sexy' - pants or a skirt ? You'll get mixed reviews and it would not surprise me if more said 'skirt'. We know they would all say it depends on HOW the person is dressing as well, a point which you seem to ignore.

Actually, can some men respond to this?