Let's talk legalism...anyone? Or should I duck and hide...

[Lovedtodeath]

Got the baby on your lap don't you? How is the weaning going? oops I am determined to hijack this thread!

We are down to once a day (before bed). Actually, he was in bed 2 hours ago... I am supposed to be writing. (Don't tell lovemykids.) SSHHHH!;)

[Spy Car]

There are people who claim to be Christians and really believe that they are, but they really aren't. That is why Jesus says... "I never knew you" when they say "Lord, Lord, did we not ... in your name?"

 

I was so thankful Sunshine was the one to say it, not being a Protestant myself and not wanting anyone to be reading meaning into my posting the scripture.

 

Judging what is in another person's heart is just something I simply can't/won't attempt. It's not my place.

 

But I have wondered, what if I were a Christian? What would that demand of me, were I really sincere? And the demands seem quite high. Could I sell all my possessions to fed the poor? Is anything less "true faith"? I don't know.

 

At the least there would seem to me to be a radical re-orientation of ones life is one is going to call oneself a follower of Jesus. I'm not saying that would be easy, or saying I could pull it off. I don't want to be a hypocrite. It's just if one is going to take a "leap of faith" this seems were it's evidenced. To me.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

Judging what is in another person's heart is just something I simply can't/won't attempt. It's not my place.

 

But I have wondered, what if I were a Christian? What would that demand of me, were I really sincere? And the demands seem quite high. Could I sell all my possessions to fed the poor? Is anything less "true faith"? I don't know.

 

At the least there would seem to me to be a radical re-orientation of ones life is one is going to call oneself a follower of Jesus. I'm not saying that would be easy, or saying I could pull it off. I don't want to be a hypocrite. It's just if one is going to take a "leap of faith" this seems were it's evidenced. To me.

 

Bill

Jesus told that person to give all of his belongings to the poor because he knew that materialism was in his heart. It is not something that he told everyone to do. I do understand what you are saying, but the scripture I quoted above says that his commandments are not burdensome. Jesus himself said my yoke is light.

[sunshine]

Judging what is in another person's heart is just something I simply can't/won't attempt. It's not my place.

 

But I have wondered, what if I were a Christian? What would that demand of me, were I really sincere? And the demands seem quite high. Could I sell all my possessions to fed the poor? Is anything less "true faith"? I don't know.

 

At the least there would seem to me to be a radical re-orientation of ones life is one is going to call oneself a follower of Jesus. I'm not saying that would be easy, or saying I could pull it off. I don't want to be a hypocrite. It's just if one is going to take a "leap of faith" this seems were it's evidenced. To me.

 

Bill

 

The thing about following Christ is that your eyes are on Him, not on how you are suppose to do it. It is such a personal thing and you know when you are to please Him and what will because He puts certain things in your life, individual opportunities that are special for you. That is why it is called a personal relationship with Christ. It is not an imaginary invisible being. We know Him, we hear Him in our minds, our hearts, our souls. He speaks to the deepest part of us. That is why you get the unswerving devotion of a true believer because we know that He is alive and in us, around us and part of us. We don't feel the need nor are we supposed to feel the need to evidence ourselves to unbelievers. We please God, not man. And all of His desires are for good. He will put us in situations where we must do good works and that particular good work not only benefits someone else whether it be believer or unbeliever, but it changes and refines us. It is what our life is and what our calling is, to serve not only God but the least of these. and those.

[sunshine]

We are down to once a day (before bed). Actually, he was in bed 2 hours ago... I am supposed to be writing. (Don't tell lovemykids.) SSHHHH!;)

 

what are you writing? I am writing some things myself.

(She said pompously:tongue_smilie:)

[Lovedtodeath]

what are you writing? I am writing some things myself.

(She said pompously:tongue_smilie:)

Ancient Explorations (in my sig) 4 weeks to schedule and then I have to write the stories and adapt the Aenid (I just downloaded Elemental Science Chemistry and told DH that I am going to the library tomorrow. :p) I am procrastinating, as I do not look forward to rewriting Aenid, or scheduling the Christian portions of SOTW in a secular curriculum. Edited October 15, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Spy Car]

You are not thick skulled Bill. Just HARD HEADED!! :lol: Sorry couldn't resist!

 

just kidding!

 

One thing to note is that this is a time in history of serious depravity. It is spoken of in the Bible at length. In the end times (which could be a month or 500 years for all we know of God's timing) people will be idolators, lovers of themselves, cruel, perverted and it will be a global thing. So you will see less good and more bad...unfortunately.

 

I don't believe in human depravity. Not that there aren't some bad people among us. But I believe most people aim (imperfectly) to be good.

 

According to the tradition we were created in God's image. How could we be depraved and be in God's image? Unless God is depraved. And I doubt that's your point.

 

And when we gained the knowledge of good and evil (which people wrongly say is when we became depraved beings) we actually became more god-like. It's in the text.

 

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil

 

So one can't become more like God, and become depraved. Unless, again, you are arguing God is depraved. As I'm sure you are not.

 

We are not God. We do however understand right from wrong, even if we sometimes fail to act according to the good. But that is not depravity. It is just imperfection.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Jesus told that person to give all of his belongings to the poor because he knew that materialism was in his heart. It is not something that he told everyone to do. I do understand what you are saying, but the scripture I quoted above says that his commandments are not burdensome. Jesus himself said my yoke is light.

 

Except that this command was "burdensome" to this rich young man. No?

 

And who isn't material? I am. Most people I would suspect are. So why should I expect not to give my wealth away if I have materialism (to some degree) in my own heart? How can it be one way for others but not so much for me?

 

Honest question.

 

Bill

[Heather in Neverland]

I don't believe in human depravity. Not that there aren't some bad people among us. But I believe most people aim (imperfectly) to be good.

 

According to the tradition we were created in God's image. How could we be depraved and be in God's image? Unless God is depraved. And I doubt that's your point.

 

And when we gained the knowledge of good and evil (which people wrongly say is when we became depraved beings) we actually became more god-like. It's in the text.

 

 

 

So one can't become more like God, and become depraved. Unless, again, you are arguing God is depraved. As I'm sure you are not.

 

We are not God. We do however understand right from wrong, even if we sometimes fail to act according to the good. But that is not depravity. It is just imperfection.

 

Bill

 

It's not the knowledge of good and evil that makes us depraved. The "fall of man" is based on the fact that we sinned when we disobeyed God. We were created "good"...without sin... but then we chose Satan's truth claims over God's, disobeyed God, bringing sin into the world and then the Bible gives us the rest of the story....

[sunshine]

I don't believe in human depravity. Not that there aren't some bad people among us. But I believe most people aim (imperfectly) to be good.

 

According to the tradition we were created in God's image. How could we be depraved and be in God's image? Unless God is depraved. And I doubt that's your point.

 

And when we gained the knowledge of good and evil (which people wrongly say is when we became depraved beings) we actually became more god-like. It's in the text.

 

 

 

So one can't become more like God, and become depraved. Unless, again, you are arguing God is depraved. As I'm sure you are not.

 

We are not God. We do however understand right from wrong, even if we sometimes fail to act according to the good. But that is not depravity. It is just imperfection.

 

Bill

 

You may not believe in human depravity but it is there. Just look at the news, war, rape, torture, genocide, pedophilia, pornography, killings in every corner of the neighborhood. Most people are out for themselves. Most people believe they are right.

 

When man had his eyes opened it was like a child learning that Santa doesn't exist. You are innocent one second in safe environment and the next you opened the closet door you were told not to open and you learn what your parents didn't want you to learn yet. It is the same. God knew from the beginning of time that man would sin. Only one is sinless. Man wants what man wants.

Having the knowledge of good and evil did not make us God like. It gave us knowledge of evil outside of the perfect environment that he was put in for protection. He then sinned and had that protection taken away. They were cast out of Eden for it was perfect. Innocence fled. Depravity stayed. There are those who do not succumb to it, Seth seemed to not have a problem, Samuel, Noah, etc... so as today there are those who do not have a thirst for evil but a form of goodness.

I am going to bed now but will check thread tomorrow. As always, I enjoy these threads. It makes you think things through.

Edited October 15, 2009 by sunshine
spelling... the bane of my existence

[Lovedtodeath]

God knew from the beginning of time that man would sin.

I disagree with this.

 

Bill, can you really read through 2 Timothy 3 and not see how it lines up with the behaviors that we see rampant in people today?

[Spy Car]

Bill, can you really read through 2 Timothy 3 and not see how it lines up with the behaviors that we see rampant in people today?

 

Different from some other time?

 

2 Timothy like the other books attributed to Saul of Tarsus/Paul to my mind is not reflective of the teaching of Jesus in Mark, Matthew, Luke and James.

 

I'm with Thomas Jefferson when it come to Saul/Paul.

 

Bill

[Heather in Neverland]

Except that this command was "burdensome" to this rich young man. No?

 

And who isn't material? I am. Most people I would suspect are. So why should I expect not to give my wealth away if I have materialism (to some degree) in my own heart? How can it be one way for others but not so much for me?

 

Honest question.

 

Bill

 

it's a great question

 

We all have different areas of "sin" that prevent us from becoming more Christ-like. For some it might be wealth and the pursuit of wealth. For others it might be alcohol, drugs, porn or even pride. For my dh it was vanity to be honest. He was obsessed with bodybuilding and it began to take precedent in his life over everything else. Over family, over God. It became his idol. Not everyone is hyper-concerned with getting rich. I know I'm not. But my area of sin is my temper. So the story of Jesus telling the rich man to give up his wealth wasn't about all Christians should live in poverty. It was about "getting your priorities in order." Nothing in your life comes before God. If it does, then it is an area of sin that you need to work on.

 

In our elementary chapel each week we have given the kids only ONE rule to follow:

 

"Don't get in the way... of what God has for you or what God has for other people."

 

To me that sums up the problem if sin pretty succinctly. God has a plan for each of us but we spend our time getting in the way of that because we think we can either do it better or do it without Him entirely. We want to be our own God. That's why man is "fallen".

[Spy Car]

It's not the knowledge of good and evil that makes us depraved. The "fall of man" is based on the fact that we sinned when we disobeyed God. We were created "good"...without sin... but then we chose Satan's truth claims over God's, disobeyed God, bringing sin into the world and then the Bible gives us the rest of the story....

 

We were not created "good." We were created amoral. Once can't be "good" without the ability to tell good from evil.

 

Just as one can not "sin" if one lacks that moral capacity. Man may have been disobedient, like an infant might be disobedient, or a dog might be disobedient. But they don't know good from evil, so the disobedience can't be called "sin".

 

Sin may have come into the world as a result of knowing good and evil, because now we gained the gift of moral discernment and became fully human. But it came from moral capacity, and failing to always acting rightly and not due to an "original" disobedience.

 

This was not a "fall" of man this was the "rise" of man. Before this we were like infants. Adults carry more burdens, sure. And we feel guilt when we act improperly. But what? We should remain babies? I don't think so, and obviously not God's plan in the book.

 

You equate the"serpent" with Satan. An interpretation not supported in the text. And one not especially relevant since God confirms in his own worlds that man have became as one of us.

 

And we are not depraved. How can we be in the image of God, and like God and be depraved? Unless God is depraved. And I'm sure you are not arguing that line any more than Sunshine would.

 

Bill

[Heather in Neverland]

We were not created "good." We were created amoral. Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

Once can't be "good" without the ability to tell good from evil. "Good" is defined by God. If God does it, says it, wills it, etc. it is good. Disobeying God is evil. There are no inherent meanings for "good" and "evil" apart from God. He is the standard by which we measure all things. If he is not, then what is?

 

Just as one can not "sin" if one lacks that moral capacity. Man may have been disobedient, like an infant might be disobedient, or a dog might be disobedient. But they don't know good from evil, so the disobedience can't be called "sin". See above.

 

Sin may have come into the world as a result of knowing good and evil, because now we gained the gift of moral discernment and became fully human. But it came from moral capacity, and failing to always acting rightly and not due to an "original" disobedience. That is anti-biblical so we will not be able to find middle ground on that.

 

This was not a "fall" of man this was the "rise" of man. Before this we were like infants. Adults carry more burdens, sure. And we feel guilt when we act improperly. But what? We should remain babies? I don't think so, and obviously not God's plan in the book. You are confusing becoming more "worldly" with becoming more "godly".

 

You equate the"serpent" with Satan. An interpretation not supported in the text. That's a debate for another time. And one not especially relevant since God confirms in his own worlds that man have became as one of us.

 

And we are not depraved. How can we be in the image of God, and like God and be depraved? Unless God is depraved. And I'm sure you are not arguing that line any more than Sunshine would. We were created in the image of God in that we have intelligence, emotions, wills. He created us Good; we chose to go the other direction and continue to do so.

Bill

.

 

Basically we are coming at this from two different types of apologetics. I presuppose that the Bible is true (inerrant, infallible, inspired) and my views on every aspect of these topics will spring from that presupposition. But it's an interesting discussion anyways!;)

[Erica in PA]

We have some common-ground, but it is interesting to me how our concerns (quite naturally) diverge. You care more that people claimed to be saved who may not be. Where I'm concerned that the motivation to do good-works is undermined.

 

 

That is true, but I want to make sure that you know why.... the reason why it upsets me to know that the gospel has been watered-down, and that people claim to be saved when they are not, is because those people will go to hell. That is a terrible tragedy, that messengers of the gospel would fail so badly in their mission to preach the gospel, that they would actually have given false assurance to many, leading them to a terrible end. It's concern and compassion for those who are lost that I feel over this subject. Just wanted to make sure you knew that.

 

And then you're right, your concern will be different, because from your worldview you are solely concerned with the here and now on the earth, and desire for people to do good works to improve conditions. For me, though, even an ideal life here on earth, in which everyone were doing their best to be kind and serve others, wonderful as that would be, and as much as I think we should strive for that, it pales in comparison with spending eternity with God.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I don't believe in human depravity. Not that there aren't some bad people among us. But I believe most people aim (imperfectly) to be good.

 

According to the tradition we were created in God's image. How could we be depraved and be in God's image? Unless God is depraved. And I doubt that's your point.

 

And when we gained the knowledge of good and evil (which people wrongly say is when we became depraved beings) we actually became more god-like. It's in the text.

 

 

 

So one can't become more like God, and become depraved. Unless, again, you are arguing God is depraved. As I'm sure you are not.

 

We are not God. We do however understand right from wrong, even if we sometimes fail to act according to the good. But that is not depravity. It is just imperfection.

 

Bill

 

Bill, I've had many serious thoughts on this subject over the last few months, and I have to say, I agree with you again.

 

I do not believe in total depravity. However, I do believe that because do we have the knowledge of good and evil, the point at which we choose to do wrong, when we fully understand it is wrong, that is the point at which we become separated from God. If we choose to believe in Jesus, he is the one who reconciles us. He is the lawyer who speaks for us before the Great Judge. He is the one who says, "This person can not be condemned, because I have already payed the penalty for his actions."

 

 

An aside to address works:

 

When I think of good works, I think of Mother Teresa, who saw in each suffering person the image of God. She did not boast in her goodness, because knew she was just doing what each of us should be doing, spreading God's love- love through acts of kindness, regardless of the person's status in this world.

 

James, that so many of us are quoting, tells us that pure religion is not outward trappings, but helping those that are in distress. How many of us practice pure religion? I do think many Christians bind themselves to acts that have no lasting power or significance. Myself included.

[Peek a Boo]

And it seems detrimental to individuals, and to society at large. It also seems to me to be anti-scriptural and in contravention to Jesus' message as I (in my limited fashion) understand it.

 

I think a great deal of people [including many Christians] have a wrong understanding of what Christ's message is.

 

what did Jesus say?

 

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.

 

Jesus' message was not one of social justice, but personal repentence and a relationship with Him. Even social justice and works aren't guaranteed: He tells us that people will hate us and persecute us because of Him.

 

If your understanding of the works issue is based on how you relate to other people and not how you grow with God, then you are coming at it from the wrong perspective, period, and all other Biblical reasoning will continue to be muddled.

 

Where I'm concerned that the motivation to do good-works is undermined.

that's because you are concerned with the works more than the salvation.

That is completely opposite what Christ says.

 

The way good-works have been almost vilified, as if they are almost "anti-faith" is a very strange place for a religion based on following the message of Jesus to be in.

yeah... which is why every church out there has some sort of ministry to benefit others...... :confused:

 

I don't believe in human depravity. Not that there aren't some bad people among us. But I believe most people aim (imperfectly) to be good.

 

We are not God. We do however understand right from wrong, even if we sometimes fail to act according to the good. But that is not depravity. It is just imperfection.

 

That's NOT what the doctrine of human depravity says. Human Depravity states that people strive to be good because THEY want it, not out of love for God. I concede that there are differences in interpretation and many people scripturally disagree with that particular doctrine, but it will help the discussion to at least understand fully what the doctrine really says, not what we think it means.

According to the tradition we were created in God's image. How could we be depraved and be in God's image? Unless God is depraved. And I doubt that's your point.

 

And when we gained the knowledge of good and evil (which people wrongly say is when we became depraved beings) we actually became more god-like. It's in the text.

 

So one can't become more like God, and become depraved. Unless, again, you are arguing God is depraved. As I'm sure you are not.

 

created in God's image = created good, not amoral. God is definitely NOT "amoral" ;)

 

created in God's image = not God, free to choose, not puppets on a string.

became more like God = We can't be "more like God" if we're gonna die either ;)

in one area we became more like God. It had horrible effects for other areas [spiritually dead]. The depravity is the spiritually dead part.

 

 

We were not created "good." We were created amoral. Once can't be "good" without the ability to tell good from evil.

 

Just as one can not "sin" if one lacks that moral capacity. Man may have been disobedient, like an infant might be disobedient, or a dog might be disobedient. But they don't know good from evil, so the disobedience can't be called "sin".

 

Sin may have come into the world as a result of knowing good and evil, because now we gained the gift of moral discernment and became fully human. But it came from moral capacity, and failing to always acting rightly and not due to an "original" disobedience.

 

No. all men are created with the law "written on their hearts." Adam and Eve knew that what they chose to do was sinful and wrong. They chose to do it anyway. They knew.

 

another No: became fully human? we were fully human before the fall. The text does not support that we weren't "fully human" before the fall.

 

SIN is about losing that relationship with God, not about "moral capacity."

 

This was not a "fall" of man this was the "rise" of man. Before this we were like infants. Adults carry more burdens, sure. And we feel guilt when we act improperly. But what? We should remain babies? I don't think so, and obviously not God's plan in the book.

 

This is The Most Incorrect scriptural statement yet.

what text are you reading that supports Adam and Eve disobeying God as an improvement??

It's a great, great thing that theology is not determined by your book. ;)

 

You equate the "serpent" with Satan. An interpretation not supported in the text. And one not especially relevant since God confirms in his own worlds that man have became as one of us.

 

It is supported "in the text" -- it's clarified elsewhere. Many theological scholars who have studied this in depth through a lens of faith equate the serpent with Satan. There are, of course, always some who will disagree with those interpretations. But is IS supported "in the text" --you simply dismiss it. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

Different from some other time?

 

2 Timothy like the other books attributed to Saul of Tarsus/Paul to my mind is not reflective of the teaching of Jesus in Mark, Matthew, Luke and James.

 

I'm with Thomas Jefferson when it come to Saul/Paul.

 

Bill

You are making no sense whatsoever. You do not believe in the Bible as a whole, you reject the entire theme of the Bible, being the slander of God's name and the first sin resulting in all of the pain and suffering and imperfection that we see today. You do not believe the Bible to be inspired of God... But in contrast, you reject Paul's teachings? :001_huh:

You equate the"serpent" with Satan. An interpretation not supported in the text. And one not especially relevant since God confirms in his own worlds that man have became as one of us.

 

Satan, the original serpent the one called slanderer... Yes it is in the text. I am not going to waste my time finding it.

 

To answer your earlier question.... the biggest thing for any of us to do, the exact thing that Adam and Eve and Satan did not do... was humble themselves under the hand of God. To realize that we need God and we are indeed, yes the entire world is depraved without him.

[Lovedtodeath]

Matthew 24:10-12 has some similarities to 2 Timothy 3.

 

10And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

 

11And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

 

 

Another translation: 10 Then, also, many will be stumbled and will betray one another and will hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and mislead many; 12 and because of the increasing of lawlessness the love of the greater number will cool off.

[Lovedtodeath]

Reading through the Gospels carefully will reveal a great many things other than humanitarian efforts that were important to Jesus.

 

He commanded his disciples to preach. He prayed about the sanctification of God's name on several occassions. He prayed about and talked about God's kingdom. One thing that is of note is that he told his disciples not to perform good works in front of others so as to be seen.

[Spy Car]

You are making no sense whatsoever. You do not believe in the Bible as a whole, you reject the entire theme of the Bible, being the slander of God's name and the first sin resulting in all of the pain and suffering and imperfection that we see today. You do not believe the Bible to be inspired of God... But in contrast, you reject Paul's teachings? :001_huh:

 

Well I try to read in a spirit of good-will, and to look for moral inspiration and life-lessons in this import work. And in so doing, I find elements that speak to my sense of "good", some things that are perhaps beyond my capacity for "good", and some elements that strike me as not good at all.

 

And I certainly see a dis-similarity between the message of Jesus, and the message of Paul. This was striking to me on first reading. And was not based on any pre-judgement, as I came to the text with a "blank-slate. But subsequently I've discovered my impression is hardly a solitary one.

 

Perhaps this is too far afield for this thread?

 

Satan, the original serpent the one called slanderer... Yes it is in the text. I am not going to waste my time finding it.

 

That's not my recollection, but I'm open to being corrected.

 

To answer your earlier question.... the biggest thing for any of us to do, the exact thing that Adam and Eve and Satan did not do... was humble themselves under the hand of God. To realize that we need God and we are indeed, yes the entire world is depraved without him.

 

What does it mean to humble oneself? If it means live and act according to goodliness or Godliness, I'd say: Great!

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Reading through the Gospels carefully will reveal a great many things other than humanitarian efforts that were important to Jesus.

 

 

Still humanitarianism is a major theme in the Synoptic Gospels. It's an interwoven message, love God and love (which means do for) your fellow man.

 

Paul's writings have, to my mind, a whole different (anti-humanitarian) flavor. And I can't reconcile the two.

 

Bill

Edited October 16, 2009 by Spy Car

[Peek a Boo]

Well I try to read in a spirit of good-will, and to look for moral inspiration and life-lessons in this import work. And in so doing, I find elements that speak to my sense of "good", some things that are perhaps beyond my capacity for "good", and some elements that strike me as not good at all.

 

exactly!

you are constantly questioning whether God did a good job according to YOUR standards.

You are not reading it through the lens of faith: this book was NOT designed to impart "moral inspiration" or "life lessons" --it was very specifically and explicitly given to us for one reason and one reason ALONE: to teach us about God, His nature, and our relationship with Him.

What YOU are doing is like taking Narnia and trying to use it as a book about fixing plumbing. Of COURSE it won't make sense as a whole because you are missing the Entire Point of the author.

Now sure -- some people pick and choose things and quotes and snippets from various works of literature and apply them to something the author had no intention of addressing when it was given, but you must do that in an informed manner, not then wonder why your use of the snippet doesn't fit the context of the rest of the story. ;)

 

or as Jesus himself said:

"Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

 

and when you try to read that full passage in context [linked] "according to what he has done" you can't --simply CAN. NOT.-- read it thinking that "done" is some checklist of "works" BECAUSE [based on everything that Christ has spelled out in the gospels and has been clarified not only in the Pauline epistles, but the other NT letters and much of the OT also..] It all boils down to faith, and what you have done with your FAITH.

And I certainly see a dis-similarity between the message of Jesus, and the message of Paul. This was striking to me on first reading. And was not based on any pre-judgement, as I came to the text with a "blank-slate. But subsequently I've discovered my impression is hardly a solitary one.

 

Perhaps this is too far afield for this thread?

nah --not too far afield ;) I think many of the legalistic issues actually come from Paul's clarifications to local congregations.

However, we are back to why you see a dis-similarity: you are trying to make a book about faith and trust in God into a book about morals. You are missing the Big Picture and Context of the story.

 

The reason you're not alone in that misunderstanding is there's a BUNCH of people that do that. The manymanymany theologians who have studied scripture in depth over thousands of years now may have developed various doctrinal stances, but they are all still pretty darn close on the message and consistency of scripture.

That's not my recollection, but I'm open to being corrected.

 

people have been correcting this idea for thousands of years too. :)

here's a basic, easy to read, well-referenced narrative that sums it up petty nicely.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-defeat.html

 

What does it mean to humble oneself? If it means live and act according to goodliness or Godliness, I'd say: Great!

 

except that you refuse to look a what God's definitions are within the realm of faith.

you first have to define Godliness, which is NOT the same as "good"liness.

 

Without faith, there is no "Godly humbleness" --it is all depraved evil.

Even the good works you and I do. Without faith, they are useless. USELESS.

 

now you can define "goodliness" however you want in your own human mind, but don't be surprised when scripture and Christ tell you you've got it wrong and the REST of scripture just doesn't seem to make sense. ;)

[Peek a Boo]

Still humanitarianism is a major theme in the Synoptic Gospels. It's an interwoven message, love God and love (which means do for) your fellow man.

yes.

They are sooo interwoven that if you are not loving God, then you can't possibly love your neighbor in a Christ-like manner.

[Lovedtodeath]

That's not my recollection, but I'm open to being corrected.

okey dokey... coming up.

 

What does it mean to humble oneself? If it means live and act according to goodliness or Godliness, I'd say: Great!

It means to realize that you need God. The world needs God. That God's laws and principles are for our benefit and we do not have the ability to guide and/or govern ourselves. That is what I mean.

[Lovedtodeath]

Revelation 12:7　And war broke out in heaven: Mi´cha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8　but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9　So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.

[Spy Car]

It means to realize that you need God. The world needs God. That God's laws and principles are for our benefit and we do not have the ability to guide and/or govern ourselves. That is what I mean.

 

But what about all the perfectly decent people of good-will in the world who are good citizens, good neighbors, good family people, and who claim to have doubts about (or a disbelief in) gods?

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

 

But what about all the perfectly decent people of good-will in the world who are good citizens, good neighbors, good family people, and who claim to have doubts about (or a disbelief in) gods?

They cannot change the world. They could try, but they will have little effect and should they have some success that will end when they die. The world will go on with detestable morals, crime, fear, hunger, old age, sickness...

[RubberChickenGirl]

In the context of overuse by the emergent leaning church I always say, "Obedience, the new legalism." It seems if you speak directly to just about any issue clearly addressed in scripture you'll be called a legalist. So, yes, there is true legalism and then there's this catch-all post-modern "I-don't-want-to-obey-scripture/God-when-it-offends-me-and-I-don't-agree-with-it-so-I-pull-the-legalism-card" thing that is far too common. The book of Timothy comes to mind.

[Peek a Boo]

But what about all the perfectly decent people of good-will in the world who are good citizens, good neighbors, good family people, and who claim to have doubts about (or a disbelief in) gods?

 

Bill

 

what does Christ say about people who do not believe in Him?

 

your definition of "good" and GOD's definition of "good" are at opposing ends.

[Heather in Neverland]

In the context of overuse by the emergent leaning church I always say, "Obedience, the new legalism." It seems if you speak directly to just about any issue clearly addressed in scripture you'll be called a legalist. So, yes, there is true legalism and then there's this catch-all post-modern "I-don't-want-to-obey-scripture/God-when-it-offends-me-and-I-don't-agree-with-it-so-I-pull-the-legalism-card" thing that is far too common. The book of Timothy comes to mind.

 

 

AMEN sister! :iagree: And if one more person pulls the "Judge not" scripture out of context things are gonna get ugly. :D

[Peek a Boo]

AMEN sister! :iagree: And if one more person pulls the "Judge not" scripture out of context things are gonna get ugly. :D

 

ah, but within the realm of personal conviction, what may be obedient for one person may be legalistic to another. ;)

 

and the judge not thing has a couple caveats too.......

[RubberChickenGirl]

ah, but within the realm of personal conviction, what may be obedient for one person may be legalistic to another. ;)

 

and the judge not thing has a couple caveats too.......

What is most telling in these times is the complete lack of the fear of the Lord and teachable spirit. When's the last time you heard someone say something to the effect of "What does the Word of God say? I want to please the Lord rather than suit myself." rather than justifications, interpretations, caveats and opinions. You don't. At least I don't.

[Tea Time]

I don't believe in human depravity. Not that there aren't some bad people among us. But I believe most people aim (imperfectly) to be good.

 

...

 

We are not God. We do however understand right from wrong, even if we sometimes fail to act according to the good. But that is not depravity. It is just imperfection.

 

Bill

So, people aim to be good. So what? How does that influence the existence of God? How does it tell us about the truth of Christianity? Is this the same "good" God made us to be?

 

What God has in mind for us is that we be perfectly what he created us to be. You lack imagination. You think you have seen "good," but you do not know what "good" will be like when He has finished His work in us. Your idea of good is simply not what He has in mind. Dream a little. Ponder Heaven a little more.

 

I am a bungler, so I will leave it C.S. Lewis to tell. And if you are not this man, and you really, sincerely just cannot believe, then, like the people you worry about who are good and living good lives, I will leave you to your perfectly just maker. You are in good hands! ;) But if that "knock" just doesn't go away? Well, you just might ought to reckon up to it. That is for YOU to decide.

 

****The Question before each of us is not "Can someone lead a good life without Christianity?" The question is, "Can I?" We all know there have been good men who were not Christians; men like Socrates and Confucius who had never heard of it, or men like J.S. Mill who quite honestly couldn't believe it...

 

But the man who asks me, "Can't I lead a good life without believing in Christianity?" is clearly not in the same position. If he hadn't heard of Christianity he would not be asking the question. If, having heard of it, and having seriously considered it, he had decided that it was untrue, then once more he would not be asking the question. The man who asks this question has heard of Christianity and is by no means certain that it may not be true. He is really asking, "Need I bother about it? Mayn't I just evade the issue, let sleeping dogs lie, and get on with being 'good'? Aren't good intentions enough to keep me safe and blameless without knocking at that dreadful door and making sure whether there is, or isn't, someone inside?"

 

To such a man it might be enough to reply that he is really asking to be allowed to get on with being "good" before he has done his best to discover what good means. But that is not the whole story. We need not inquire whether God will punish him for his cowardice and laziness: they will punish themselves. The man is shirking. He is deliberately trying not to know whether Christianity is true or false, because he foresees endless trouble if it should turn out to be true. He is like the man who deliberately "forgets" to look at the notice board because, if he did, he might find his name down for some unpleasant duty....******* From "Man or Rabbit?" in God in the Dock

[Impish]

Forget the quoting, I'll just say I agree with Peek. Completely.

[Peek a Boo]

What is most telling in these times is the complete lack of the fear of the Lord and teachable spirit. When's the last time you heard someone say something to the effect of "What does the Word of God say? I want to please the Lord rather than suit myself." rather than justifications, interpretations, caveats and opinions. You don't. At least I don't.

 

we actually hear that a lot ;)

 

but that's not new for "these times" -- the OT is full of examples of a lack of the fear of the Lord and unteachable spirits.

 

what we DON't hear is fellow Believers acknowledging that there might --just might- be a different interpretation of God's Word that is acceptable as obedience, and that different people in different denominations are specifically called and set aside for those particular types of obedience.

 

The different doctrines around baptism, the Trinity, communion, church structure, pacifism, marriage, raising children, Christmas, Halloween, Harry Potter, gvt involvement, putting grocery carts back in the cart corral, requesting people remove their shoes upon entering your home, etc are usually looked at as having "only one right answer per God's Word" when that's simply not true.

 

How many of us gave up all our personal possessions and hit the road, staff and cloak in hand, to spread God's Word?

I have met precious few who did THAT. Even most missionaries now load up lots of non-Bible stuff to take.

 

The Word of God DOES allow for opinion in dealing with many issues.

The Word of God DOES allow for personal convictions.

The Word of God IS silent on many issues.

 

Scripture speaks pretty clearly to things we are to judge and things we aren't to judge, but we don't have a 30 page checklist --front and back, in 8 point Arial narrow font with margins reduced to .2 inches: we actually have to base some decisions on prayer and guidance from the Holy Spirit.

 

different people may be guided to different actions based on individual circumstances.

and sometimes we make the wrong decision.

 

Just because we disagree with someone's opinion, interpretation, conviction, or choice doesn't mean they are ignoring God's Word to suit themselves or trying to justify their own desires. We can certainly make that assumption if we want to [and most of us do to some extent], and every once in a while someone is pretty bold and will tell us flat out that they don't care what God has to say, but for the most part we do have to put some caveats on ourselves before we start judging other people: we are NOT omniscient and rarely know The Full Story.

[Impish]

I need an 'I agree with Peek' smilie. Anyone have one?

[canadianmum]

Impish, you're funny!

 

I don't want to flog that poor horse, but what about our faith being what allows us into heaven (based on saving grace and Christ's atonement) and the works, again, evidence of faith and contingent on our reward in heaven? This is part of the picture that's being left out. Someone came close when she said that the works are ultimately about loving God, not really about loving people - that's a happy consequence.

 

Bill, I think you are very brave, and would be a dynamite follower of Christ, and would love to see you filled with the Holy Spirit, because then a lot of your questions would make sense. Scripture is our love letter from a holy, outside-of-the-time/space-continuum God. It gets back to the eternity thing, if you want the long view, and that's pretty profound. Life does have to change radically for those giving over to the life found "in" Christ. It is a live and philosophy of BALANCE, but balance as set out in God's standard of everything. The goal is Jesus. To know Him and to be known, as someone once said.

 

I appreciate the passion expressed in the posts. Thanks for letting me join in.

blessings,

Nancy.

[Halftime Hope]

putting grocery carts back in the cart corral

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

Deleted the rest...I'm going to go with what Thumper's Mommy always said....

Edited October 16, 2009 by Valerie(TX)

[Erica in PA]

In the context of overuse by the emergent leaning church I always say, "Obedience, the new legalism." It seems if you speak directly to just about any issue clearly addressed in scripture you'll be called a legalist. So, yes, there is true legalism and then there's this catch-all post-modern "I-don't-want-to-obey-scripture/God-when-it-offends-me-and-I-don't-agree-with-it-so-I-pull-the-legalism-card" thing that is far too common. The book of Timothy comes to mind.

 

In my experience, legalism is significant enough a problem in the church that I wouldn't write it off quite so quickly. I think we Christians tend to struggle at least as much with pride and judging others who don't live up to what we perceive to be "the Biblical way to do things", as we do with the dynamic you describe. Both are problems in the church, but I would actually say that in the churches I've been involved with, the former is a more pervasive problem than the latter.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

In my experience, legalism is significant enough a problem in the church that I wouldn't write it off quite so quickly. I think we Christians tend to struggle at least as much with pride and judging others who don't live up to what we perceive to be "the Biblical way to do things", as we do with the dynamic you describe.

:iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

 

The different doctrines around baptism, the Trinity, communion, church structure, pacifism, marriage, raising children, Christmas, Halloween, Harry Potter, gvt involvement, putting grocery carts back in the cart corral, requesting people remove their shoes upon entering your home, etc are usually looked at as having "only one right answer per God's Word" when that's simply not true.

I need an I disagree smiley. There are things in this list that are taught explicitly in scripture. Jesus said that we must worship in truth.

[Peek a Boo]

I need an I disagree smiley. There are things in this list that are taught explicitly in scripture. Jesus said that we must worship in truth.

 

try this one ----> :thumbdown:

 

:D

 

there are things on that list that ARE "taught explicitly" in scripture, but understood differently in the whole counsel of scriptural context. There is solid scriptural evidence for both Believer's Baptism and infant baptism, open communion and closed communion, doctrine of the Trinity vs no Trinity. But how people interpret those "explicit teachings" in context in scripture can be vastly different,

yet still considered in truth.

[Spy Car]

 

We all know there have been good men who were not Christians

 

Do you agree with this statement by C.S. Lewis?

 

 

[if you] sincerely just cannot believe, then, like the people you worry about who are good and living good lives, I will leave you to your perfectly just maker.

 

If we believe in justice, and we believe in personal accountability, and assuming were are to be judged for the lives we've lead and the actions we've taken (or failed to take) by a fair-judge, why should we want an exemption?

 

How would it be ethical to behave badly in this world, but to expect a "get out of jail free" pass based on "faith". If true faith is so transformative, then I'd think a true believer would demand their life be judged in the same fashion those not given a free-pass. Any other option, to my mind would be an "easy out", and would make a mockery of justice.

 

Bill

Edited October 16, 2009 by Spy Car
typo

[QueenCat]

there are things on that list that ARE "taught explicitly" in scripture, but understood differently in the whole counsel of scriptural context. There is solid scriptural evidence for both Believer's Baptism and infant baptism, open communion and closed communion, doctrine of the Trinity vs no Trinity. But how people interpret those "explicit teachings" in context in scripture can be vastly different,

yet still considered in truth.

 

:iagree: You've said this better than I think I've ever seen anyone else attempt. All of my beliefs are based on the Bible yet I will have people tell me that I'm not basing my beliefs on the Bible because they (or their pastor/church) says the Bible says something different. Often, they'll show it to me or quote scripture. What they won't do is show all the scripture pertaining to a subject but only the portion that makes their point.

[Lovedtodeath]

Peek, my point was that James 12:15 clearly states that a person who does not return shopping carts belongs to the realms below. :D

 

Just because we disagree with someone's opinion, interpretation, conviction, or choice doesn't mean they are ignoring God's Word to suit themselves or trying to justify their own desires.

:iagree:

 

How would it be ethical to behave badly in this world, but to expect a "get out of jail free" pass based on "faith". If true faith is so transformative, then I'd think a true believer would demand their life be judged in the same fashion those not given a free-pass. Anything other option, to my mind would be an "easy out", and would make a mockery of justice.

:iagree:

 

:iagree: You've said this better than I think I've ever seen anyone else attempt. All of my beliefs are based on the Bible yet I will have people tell me that I'm not basing my beliefs on the Bible because they (or their pastor/church) says the Bible says something different. Often, they'll show it to me or quote scripture. What they won't do is show all the scripture pertaining to a subject but only the portion that makes their point.

I will gladly look up EVERY scripture on a topic including context.

 

That scripture in Genesis that Bill quoted earlier has me admittedly confuzzled.

[Impish]

How would it be ethical to behave badly in this world, but to expect a "get out of jail free" pass based on "faith". If true faith is so transformative, then I'd think a true believer would demand their life be judged in the same fashion those not given a free-pass. Any other option, to my mind would be an "easy out", and would make a mockery of justice.

 

Bill

Well, a person truly convicted in their faith wouldn't 'behave badly', counting on a 'get out of jail free pass'.

 

The reality is, NOBODY is perfect. We are all sinners, as much as we may strive to be otherwise. God, in His perfect wisdom knows this, and sent His Son to pay for our sins.

 

You know this, Bill. Its already been explained to you. Its far too integral a concept of the Christian faith for you NOT to know this, and stupid you aren't. I honestly don't get why you participate in such discussions, other than you simply enjoy the idea of getting things heated and the ensuing intellectual challenge in the debate.

 

As for me, I'm outta here. The whole singing pig issue. Round and round and round it will go. I'm already bored of the chorus. Someone will answer, you'll pick it apart, slant it, come at it from another angle, and round it goes, time and again.

Have fun though. :001_smile:

[PineFarmMom]

Well, a person truly convicted in their faith wouldn't 'behave badly', counting on a 'get out of jail free pass'.

 

The reality is, NOBODY is perfect. We are all sinners, as much as we may strive to be otherwise. God, in His perfect wisdom knows this, and sent His Son to pay for our sins.

 

You know this, Bill. Its already been explained to you. Its far too integral a concept of the Christian faith for you NOT to know this, and stupid you aren't. I honestly don't get why you participate in such discussions, other than you simply enjoy the idea of getting things heated and the ensuing intellectual challenge in the debate.

 

As for me, I'm outta here. The whole singing pig issue. Round and round and round it will go. I'm already bored of the chorus. Someone will answer, you'll pick it apart, slant it, come at it from another angle, and round it goes, time and again.

 

Have fun though. :001_smile:

 

 

:iagree:

[Guest janainaz]

Really. This interests me a lot. I think I use the word legalistic a bit too freely and would have a time of it backing up what I would call "legalistic".

 

That said, I know I have been very hurt by what I would call legalism. But, when I look closer, it seems that I am hurt by a person/persons'/group of people's attitudes and choices that are what should be called abusive.

 

For example, I entered marriage believing that divorce is wrong and sinful (with a couple exceptions) and that a wife was to honor and obey her husband. Then, husband abused children (illegally, true abuse, not just a spanking here or there). I was verbally abused and emotionally manipulated. It took years for me to stand up for myself and get out of that. My husband used the Bible and what I have called "legalism" to control me.

 

There are many areas this happened in.

 

Birth control, any time, any reason was simply wrong. I had 7 babies in 10 years, battled cancer and depression... I have said that it is legalistic to live out "zero tolerance for birth control" type lifestyle... It disregards the mother's life and role. Is that use of "legalism" correct or off base? (I ask genuinely, I love God, am a Christian and study the Bible, I point no fingers at individuals, but know that there are groups of people who believe along these lines)

 

Wearing dresses. My opinion is that the scriptures say a woman should not wear men's clothing, so taking it to dresses only becomes legalistic. My conviction is that I should dress for the occasion, dress provocatively ONLY for my husband and dress in a feminine way. How is the term legalism used here? When is something legalistic or not?

 

Celebrating holidays/birthdays... we don't really need to discuss these issues, I just wonder where do we draw a line and say "this is legalistic" "this is not legalistic"??

 

When we discuss convictions and issues on the board, this term does come up... so, dear favorite public forum of mine, what is legalism?

 

(My examples were to show how I use the word, but I do not put them out to say I am right or wrong about an issue or that any of you are right or wrong... although I have strong beliefs on the issues, that isn't necessarily what this is about)

 

I think that enforcing the "law" stands in the way of love. I am free to abide by my convictions, but it's not love to enforce those convictions on other people. Love covers, it does not condemn and demand its own way.