A little Legalism Never Hurt Anybody

[Arimathea]

A Little Legalism Never Hurt Anybody



Say what??!!! I like that title. If nothing else, it gets people’s attention. Yes, I know, the idea is unfashionable nowadays, in this age of cheap grace, but its true, we all need some laws to live by, and the world does too, and good thing we have some! After all, what would become of the Nation if it had no laws? How about the roads and hi-way system, what if there were no rules, to keep order? How about in the household? In my home there’s a good measure of laws, that my children know well, and to good results. A home, an individual, a nation, a business, anything without a set of rules to govern it is in chaos, or anarchy, or both.

“But that’s not legalism,” you say, “that’s just life.” I agree. Legalism as a religious system is something else, but the minute you start talking about rules (or even guidelines) in Christianity, you get accused of legalism, so I might as well go there first. I am advocating something here, call it what you will. My proposed list of rules will follow shortly.

Legalism has a bad name nowadays, and probably rightly so, for past abuses. Legalism taken to abusive extremes is damaging. But that’s not what we are talking about. We’re talking about the knee jerk habit of resisting any and all rules at the outset, in a mad rush to avoid legalism, without stopping to consider what benefit they might have to us. To dispense with any laws at all, to meet any proposed rule with violent opposition, to consider any form of direction imposed on the individual as anathema to the kingdom of God, to health, sanity, and spirituality, well that, I submit is a dreadful ditch, and one we don’t want to fall into.

In the kingdom of God, we know that no amount of obedience to rules atones for sin, nor can that practice provide Redemption for fallen man. Let’s settle that. Now having settled that, now lets consider this: Rules have their place in the kingdom of God, and in the blood-bought church, just as they have their place in the family, in the nation, and in the individual life. Rules bring order out of chaos, make a garden out of a jungle, and bring peace where discord reigns. Removal of rules turns order into chaos, turns a garden back into a jungle, and trades peace for discord of all kinds.

Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” That means there are some. In the rush to eradicate works-religion from the church, it may be that many a good spiritual vitamin has been rejected, practices that would keep the church pure, keep order, and protect it from the world. It may be that this neglect has caused the church to become undernourished, anemic, and left to try and resist an increasingly worldly environment with a weak immune system. Are there signs of problems in the church? Is the Pope Catholic? If you don’t see any signs of problems in the church, you may as well stop reading now, for this paper is written for folks who have already come at least that far. But if you have wondered why the church of today looks like a faded pastel compared to the brilliant colors of the New Testament church, the church of the martyrs, and even the church of the Reformation, read on.



I listen to Christian Radio preachers on a local station, and its amazing to me, how all day long, you can hear over and over again, from preachers of every stripe, a constant condemnation of legalism and works based religion. The point is made in so many ways, and so often, that I wonder just where are all the works religion preachers that these preachers are railing against? I certainly can’t find any on the radio, and I don’t believe I’ve ever found one in any of the many churches I’ve visited. But from the hue and cry, they must be all around us, lurking behind every bush, waiting for a moments relent from the constant warning, that they might jump out and immediately make converts to the point of view that heaven is bought by good works. A message for which they will find a willing audience who will fall over like dry straw before a stiff wind. That’s what you would think. I’m skeptical.

Come to think of it, in my 30 years as a Christian, I would be hard pressed to find one Christian anywhere, in any of my associations who believed in works salvation. If a works religion preacher did rise up, who then would be his audience? Seriously now, if no one is preaching it, and no one believes it, what are they warning so vehemently against?! Is it a hidden phantom, kept in the box only by constant rhetoric, or is there something else at work? Glad you asked. The belief that good works atones for sin is dangerous. Being reminded of that may need to be a regular part of our Christian diet. But I am going to suggest that the situation is just a bit TOO stark to be natural. Just a teensy bit too one sided. The protest is too loud for the crime. The scale is way out of balance. Yes, there is something else at work, and here is what it is: What is happening is: The church is being swept into the world, and the constant cry against works religion is aiding and abetting that process, by demonizing any voice that peeps a warning in the other direction. That’s my thesis.

So let me offer a few warnings in the other direction, after which I will take cover and let the rocks fly for a while, and then tell you why I propose these particular things.



Here’s a proposed set of rules that if followed by the church, (I have good evidence) would in one fell swoop solve an enormous array of problems:



Rule Number 1



Stay separate from the world, in both mind and body. That is, do not watch TV, do not go to movies, do not read worldly books, and do not take on the look, dress, and attitude of the world. Really? Really. Instead, apply your body, soul, and mind, to learning how to have the mind of Christ.



Rule Number 2



Let men dress like men, and women like women. Let women have the glory of long hair, as in 1 Cor. 11, and men short hair. Let women wear dresses, and men pants. And let all clothing be modest. Do not wear makeup, do not get piercings and tattoos, do not dye your hair, do not copy worldly fashions, for all of these things are associated with worldly lifestyles, send mixed messages, and reinforce participation with the world, rather than separation. Let all clothing err on the side of modesty, and send the message of separation from the world.



Rule Number 3



Do not be a part of the problem, be a part of the solution. We know very well that 99% of Christians do not follow the two rules above. Be the one person in your circle that begins to follow them, and explain to others why you do. You will be amazed to find the spiritual climate changing just by your presence, and your stand. In time, others may start to see the value in these things and do them, and the influence will grow.



Ok, throw the rocks.



Now, it will certainly be objected, did not the Holiness extremists of the 1800’s practice these things? Yes they did, and more, and often for all the wrong reasons. But in spite of all of their errors, history shows that when the Spirit of Holiness (also known as the Holy Spirit) brought the Pentecostal revival to Azusa Street in 1906, He came to THESE PEOPLE. For all of their errors, it was a vindication that the Holy Spirit appreciates a people who value Holiness. Holiness is separation. I am in no way advocating a return to the wrongly founded holiness practices of the 1800’s, but I am advocating that if these practices are placed on a proper theological foundation, that is, that they do NOT buy Salvation, but are a part of worship, these practices are of incalculable value to the church, especially in today’s world. Why am I so confident of this? I know of what I speak, as I will explain shortly.



Now, why do I suggest these particular things? Well, number one, these things have a long history in the church and general Christian practice, and have only been abandoned recently by historical standards, that is, in the past 50 years or so. Secondly, their abandonment has never been properly justified from the scriptures, but has been argued on social grounds, rather than scriptural. Thirdly, the exegetical case (if it can even be called that) for their abandonment came after these practices began hitting the pews. In other words, the people started behaving differently--behaviors they had picked up from the world. Then the clergy invented a theology to justify the new behavior. This is NOT the way new revelations from God come to the church. The biblical case should be at the leading edge, not the following edge. And finally, because I go to a church that has made the conscious decision to keep all these practices—not by law, but because it believes there is a lot of positive value in them, and the results of such a decision are almost unbelievably wonderful. The results are in, and they speak louder than words.

For example, in this church, the children are respectful to their parents. The young people are upright and wholesome. Most conversations center around spiritual things, not worldly entertainment. The marriages have a success rate in the high 90% rather than in the 50%, which is the national average in Christian circles. Signs, wonders, and miracles happen continuously. And sober and Godly lives are testifying strongly in the community, and causing the church to grow rapidly, without compromising anything to get people in the doors. As Jesus said to John the Baptist, when he sent to ask if He was the one: “The sick are healed, the dead are raised, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.” The greater fruits of Christianity, in New Testament type colors, are following a church that is practicing these things. There is a sense of order, and a million intangibles that are better seen than told, that are making this church different, and more like the New Testament church in every way. Really? Really.

I put it to you: If all of what I have just said is true, is this a coincidence? Or is there a connection. I say there is a connection. This church is raising to God a lifestyle of separation as a free will offering. God is anointing the offering and blessing the people. God does not anoint what He does not approve of. I could say more, but I think I’ll stop right there and take some questions from my literary audience.



Write to me:

markaho@fidalgo.net (markaho@fidalgo.net)

[Kenny]

Rule Number 1



Stay separate from the world, in both mind and body. That is, do not watch TV, do not go to movies, do not read worldly books, and do not take on the look, dress, and attitude of the world. Really? Really.

In other words, completely disengage from the culture and lose any ability to effectively communicate the Christian message to the rest of the world.



Rule Number 2



Let men dress like men, and women like women. Let women have the glory of long hair, as in 1 Cor. 11, and men short hair. Let women wear dresses, and men pants. And let all clothing be modest. Do not wear makeup, do not get piercings and tattoos, do not dye your hair, do not copy worldly fashions, for all of these things are associated with worldly lifestyles, send mixed messages, and reinforce participation with the world, rather than separation. Let all clothing err on the side of modesty, and send the message of separation from the world.

In other words, follow arbitrary (non-Biblical – togas anyone?) standards of dress because … well … because… because I say so.

Do not be a part of the problem, be a part of the solution. We know very well that 99% of Christians do not follow the two rules above. Be the one person in your circle that begins to follow them, and explain to others why you do. You will be amazed to find the spiritual climate changing just by your presence, and your stand. In time, others may start to see the value in these things and do them, and the influence will grow.

Yep, the climate will change alright. Christians will become even more hypocritical, self righteous and isolated.

Perhaps a better way for us to be separate from the world is to actually go about the business of loving each other, of reaching out to the poor and the oppressed, of standing up against the numerous injustices of this world, of living lives which are motivated by laying up treasures in Heaven instead of accumulating goods on earth, of interacting with this culture so as to engage and critique it rather than withdraw from it and stick our self-righteous heads in the sand.

Nah, it's easier to stay away from movies and dress funny…

[Arimathea]

Thanks Kenny,

Your comments leave an unanswered question:

What is your explanation as to why your dire predictions concerning my proposals are not coming to pass? And, part two, why are all the opposite (positive) things coming to pass?

Certainly these things are concrete enough that they need not be left to the realms of speculation, when they can and are being tested, and producing none of what you fear.

Why So?

[Kenny]

Thanks Kenny,

Your comments leave an unanswered question:

What is your explanation as to why your dire predictions concerning my proposals are not coming to pass? And, part two, why are all the opposite (positive) things coming to pass?

I don't know. I do not deny your experience, but I don't know enough information to evaluate its relevance. Perhaps the people in your church are particularly loving toward one another. Perhaps they do reach out to the poor and the oppressed. Perhaps they are faithful, fervent, gentle people. Perhaps they have avoided the consumerist traps of the world on account of their lifestyle, though they could have done so in other ways. Perhaps they faithfully preach the Gospel. Perhaps they do many other things well for which God is blessing them, perhaps in spite of rather than because of some of their other legalistic hang-ups – such is the nature of grace.

I don't deny that your experience does not count as evidence for your view. I do think that fruit and experience are relevant to the evaluation of such claims. But your evidence is also anecdotal and inconclusive; there may be alternative explanations for it.

[Berean Todd]

Rule Number 1
Stay separate from the world, in both mind and body. That is, do not watch TV, do not go to movies, do not read worldly books, and do not take on the look, dress, and attitude of the world. Really? Really. Instead, apply your body, soul, and mind, to learning how to have the mind of Christ.

The do not watch TV guideline is ridiculous, because there are perfectly decent programs on TV. If you would say not to watch a certain type of TV that would be one thing. Also, as to the "not adapting the look or dress of the world", that would only be if it is unbiblical, as in imodest. If it is not an imodest dress then there is no reason to not adopt it.


Rule Number 2
Let women wear dresses, and men pants.

That is completely unfounded, has no basis in the Bible, and is utterly ridiculous. Modest clothing? Always, of course. Required dresses for women? Defend that Bibilically for me. Before you go there, I know the Leviticus passage, and try reading in context please, because when it was written pants didn't exist, men wore robes (dresses anyone? should we men now wear dresses, or at least robes, since that is what they wore then?)

[smaller]

This may sound different coming from the hand of a person who believes that ALL people are SAVED, but...

Any believer should know that Jesus said heaven and earth would pass away before THE LAW passed away or failed.

The Law Stands today, just as quick and effective as The Day it was delivered.

It is beyond denying that Paul SERVED THE LAW (with his mind,) UPHELD THE LAW, ESTABLISHED THE LAW, said that THE LAW IS SPIRITUAL, said that THE LAW is HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, AND GOOD, and that THE LAW is good IF USED PROPERLY.

He also said that THE LAW revealed SIN INDWELLING HIM and EMPOWERED THE SIN that indwelt him, and that THE LAW was written to THE LAWLESS.

For all these reasons THE LAW STANDS and MUST be honored and served.

It's that simple.

[Arimathea]

Ok I’m seeing a bit of a pattern here. Here is a curiosity that deserves an explanation. In a time trip back to 1900, if there were a Theology page that could be posted to, and a random sampling of interested Christians were given these same proposals, they would have no problem finding biblical basis for them. (Except where technology has not advanced such as TV) Now, it seems, even among the educated, there is a complete blackout of knowledge on the Biblical reasons for these things, particularly the dress issue. Its one thing to disagree with an idea. Its another to have no concept of the Bible case behind the thing you are disagreeing with.



My question is this: How did things get this way?



I perhaps need to emphasize that my point rests partially on the fact that these types of things, as practiced almost universally by the church until the last 50 years or so, (and in Judaism before that) have NEVER been Biblically refuted. When Amelia Bloomer first released “pantelets” in 1849, the hue and cry from the church was enormous, and they knew WHY biblically. Now they have no idea.



This is how the historical sequence went, at least with the dress issue:

1. The world in general practiced the norms taught by the church.

2. The world began making changes in this practice.

3. The church taught against it, and gave the biblical case.

4. The people in the pews began copying the world in spite of the urgings of their leaders.

5. The leaders came up with a “new” theology to accommodate what their parishioners were now practicing.



I am reopening this case, because the revolution that took place was wrong headed to begin with. The world does not bring new revelations to the church. The church is supposed to hold a standard against the world. Now before I go on, is there anyone, anywhere, among the folks who have taken the time to read my article, who can articulate accurately the biblical basis for Christian dress habits (lets just start with that one) as taught by the church for the last 2000 years? (the strange blip of the last 50 precluded)



And having done that, are you now prepared to refute that case biblically? Then the cart will be back behind the horse.



And thanks KENNY, for your kind observations concerning our congregation, it is the benefit of the doubt towards something you have no way of knowing. I believe if you had more background knowledge on the Biblical case for some of these things, you would see at once the connections between these practices, and the results our church experiences, as the most natural and logical thing in the world.



And BEREAN TODD, good point on TV. However, I have found that the combined efforts of billions of dollars worth of advertisers, using the best principles of human psychology, over an extended period of time, are effective in getting even the most principled watchers to be drawn into things they ought not to see, if not in the programming, in the advertisements themselves. For myself, it is not so much the TV box, but the programming that is the problem.



And SMALLER—Interesting point. Do you advocate following the full Levitical worship system, including sacrifices?

[GoBahnsen]

Welcome to Tweb Arimathia. Don't know if you're a guy or girl, so I'll assume a guy (Correct me if I'm wrong). I'm one of the moderators here and I hope you enjoy your time on Tweb. Please note the decorum rules at the top of the page in the "sticky" threads under "read me". Your thread would be more properly placed in Christianity 201, but I'll let it ride here and give you time to feel your way around. Again a hearty welcome from the staff.

I've skimmed through this thread, but I have yet to get overly interested. Let the thread starter keep in mind that they need to win the respect of the other members here if they want their opinions to carry any weight.

Certainly solid Christianity isn't antinomian, but on the other hand it isn't about "perceived" holiness either. Rather true holiness, which even the Pharisees could not see that Jesus possessed, and that in perfection. Accusing Him of drunkeness and eating with sinners.

I remember well my early Christian days wondering how a Pastor's wife (a customer of mine) could listen to "Sting" on cassette tape and consider herself to be walking after the Spirit. I thought Christians had to cut off the world and create their own insulated sphere of existence.:duh:

Often what it comes down is maturity. The weaker brother may need to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols. Because to him... an idol is something. To the mature an idol is nothing. To me back then, Sting was "wordly" and I wanted to impose my standard on the rest of the Church.

I sense this brother (thread starter) is at a place where his eyes are seeminly freshly "opened" to alarming truths. Fine. If he imposes them on others, he may be guilty of the very legalism he thinks is not rampant.

If I were in his presense I would try to wear the clothes that would not stumble him. If he were at my house, I would avoid those things that he considers sinful, in order to not stumble him.

In the mean time let us all observe his charitable spirit. Often the legalistic person, tending toward perfectionism, is impatient and cutting. Proud and puffed up. Teaching others to show love while they bite heads off in the process. I'm not saying this of our new friend. I will watch and wait to see if good fruit is forth coming, or a condemning legalistic spirit in the name of piety. Time will tell. I hope for the best. Love believes for the best.

[Arimathea]

Gobahnsen,

I heard there were moderators around here, nice to meet one. I noticed later that I posted in the wrong forum for the topic, thanks for the latitude. To your questions, yes I am a man.
Short bio-- (that maybe I should post it somewhere) 39 years old, raised as a Pastor's son the in AG church, Christian for my entire life, many ministers on both sides of my family. Have a BA in Bible Literature from Northwest College, have worked as paid staff on quite a few churches over the years. I Read like a madman (have for years) and been a careful student of Christianity in our modern culture, following the research of George Barna, and various church growth "experts" among others. Have been on a lot of ministry mailing lists. Have worked as a missionary in Europe and Japan, (my folks are currently in China) It is a strange post coming from someone like me, I admit. Do I have something worthwhile to say? Like you say, time will tell.

Shalom.

[GoBahnsen]

Gobahnsen,

I heard there were moderators around here, nice to meet one. I noticed later that I posted in the wrong forum for the topic, thanks for the latitude. To your questions, yes I am a man.
Short bio-- (that maybe I should post it somewhere) 39 years old, raised as a Pastor's son the in AG church, Christian for my entire life, many ministers on both sides of my family. Have a BA in Bible Literature from Northwest College, have worked as paid staff on quite a few churches over the years. I Read like a madman (have for years) and been a careful student of Christianity in our modern culture, following the research of George Barna, and various church growth "experts" among others. Have been on a lot of ministry mailing lists. Have worked as a missionary in Europe and Japan, (my folks are currently in China) It is a strange post coming from someone like me, I admit. Do I have something worthwhile to say? Like you say, time will tell.

Shalom.You sound like a nice kid (got ya beat by ten years). I've been a Christian all my life too, longer than ya been alive. Most of what was gained to me though...I count as rubbish for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.

Sounds like you have a background that will lend itself to some informative and perhaps provocative posts. Happy posting! :cheers:

[Spiritus Naturae]

Are you a member of the non-instrumental Churches of Christ, Arimathea? :hrm:

[Arimathea]

Are you a member of the non-instrumental Churches of Christ, Arimathea? :hrm:
No, I'm actually a musician, semi-pro, my mother was a piano teacher, I tune and repair pianos for extra income. If I was in that church they'd surely throw me out.

[Arimathea]

Good for you!

I'm wondering, how do you reconcile this statement:


[QUOTE=GoBahnsen]You sound like a nice kid (got ya beat by ten years). I've been a Christian all my life too, longer than ya been alive.

With this one...

I remember well my early Christian days wondering how a Pastor's wife (a customer of mine) could listen to "Sting" on cassette tape and consider herself to be walking after the Spirit. I thought Christians had to cut off the world and create their own insulated sphere of existence.

Sounds like and old Christian and a new one.

And also, how do you do those nifty quotes of other messages. I'm doing it the long way.

Ari

[Berean Todd]

Arimathea, I would still like you to address the issue on "dress code" that I brought up in post #5 if you are willing.

[GoBahnsen]

Good for you!

I'm wondering, how do you reconcile this statement:


GB:You sound like a nice kid (got ya beat by ten years). I've been a Christian all my life too, longer than ya been alive.

With this one...

I remember well my early Christian days wondering how a Pastor's wife (a customer of mine) could listen to "Sting" on cassette tape and consider herself to be walking after the Spirit. I thought Christians had to cut off the world and create their own insulated sphere of existence.

Sounds like and old Christian and a new one.

And also, how do you do those nifty quotes of other messages. I'm doing it the long way.

Ari To do the quote boxes (and you will want to do something that identifies who is talking) click your mouse and drag it over the area you want to box in. So now it's highlighted, just like when you copy and paste. Next go to the top of your window box and you see all the special feature icons. click on the white circle with an exclamation "!" mark inside it. Now your highlighted area has quote tags at the beginning and the end. Play around with it, you'll figure out what works.

As to the apparent contradiction. I placed my faith in Christ when I was 7. My sanctification has been a rough ride. There have been times in my life where I looked more like the world than Christ. Yet as I look back I see His hand all the way through. Lots of times, when others were running off to do some serious sinning, the Lord prevented me from the same success they enjoyed. They might get away with writing their names in wet cement, not GoBahnsen.

I thought I was just plain unlucky growing up, now I see the hand of the Lord. Here's a classic example. One time I got someone old enough to buy me some beer. Then to impress my friends I did a thing we would do called "shooting" a beer. Can't even remember how it went, but I shot a tall Coor's in about 3 seconds. Then I noticed that it tasted funny. Then I saw a small slit in the top of the can from a box cutter maybe. Yuck! GB had just powered down some gross can of contaminated brew!:duh:

Oh well, I thought, no biggie...I was still upbeat because I was planning on some fornication with my brand new girlfiend. The Lord would have none of that. About 11:00 when I was ready for night moves, and this new girl looked real easy, I had to step outside my parents station wagon and toss up all my beer. It was a bad one, because it was food poisoning on account of that one "unlucky" bad beer. Who arranged that beer for ol GB? Not to mention that I shot it. If I would have just drank it normal like, I would have probably spit it out, but on a "shoot" you don't taste it.

To answer my own question, I say--- God did, and that from before the foundations of the world. (Now I'm bringin in my Theology. Can't seem to just have a normal conversation) He decided to foil my sin plans again, and although I didn't like this activity back then, I can smile on it now and say "thank you Lord".

So assuming I was saved at 7, I've been a believer all my life. My next serious time of re-commitment (not counting throwing faggots (small stick) on the fire at Christian camp in rededication) was after I saw the Exorcist at age 18. That was my first dose of evidential apologetics and it worked. Next major advance was Chuck Smith's book End Times, 1979. My first dose of prophecy. Then a trip down perfection lane with Charles G. Finney. Then the second blessing came, and I was delivered out of it all by solid Calvinistic preaching. Things are better than ever and the beer isn't flat:hehe: .

[Arimathea]

Arimathea, I would still like you to address the issue on "dress code" that I brought up in post #5 if you are willing.
Hi Todd,

Well, I've got tomes on that, and I'm trying to locate my audience before I deliver the whole load. Part of the reason for my post here, is to help me draft a tract that will make sense to the average audience. The tract is still in progress, and you are helping me refine it with your questions. If you are really interested in that, I could maybe send you a preliminary draft of what I have, and offer some comments. Thanks for the interest.

Shalom

[Arimathea]

[QUOTE=GoBahnsen]To do the quote boxes (and you will want to do something that identifies who is talking) click your mouse and drag it over the area you want to box in. So now it's highlighted, just like when you copy and paste. Next go to the top of your window box and you see all the special feature icons. click on the white circle with an exclamation "!" mark inside it. Now your highlighted area has quote tags at the beginning and the end. Play around with it, you'll figure out what works.
I think that worked. So then you cut out what you don't want to remain, such as...

Yuck! GB had just powered down some gross can of contaminated brew!:duh:

And leave what you want...

Oh well, I thought, no biggie...I was still upbeat because I was planning on some fornication with my brand new girlfiend.
Got it.

To answer my own question, I say--- God did, and that from before the foundations of the world. (Now I'm bringin in my Theology. Can't seem to just have a normal conversation) He decided to foil my sin plans again, and although I didn't like this activity back then, I can smile on it now and say "thank you Lord".
So it is your theology that allows you to be saved at 7, and saved all the way through, until sanctification later. My theology allows for that possibility.

You know, I made my first comittment at 7 years old also, and AMEN to God's protecting grace! Except, in my case, he kept me from any desire to participate with the world's antics. I was from that time, only interested in riding God's train, and if, such as when in Bible College, some friends convinced me to go see a movie--even one that was not so bad, I always came out with this sick kind of feeling (no one had told me that movies were wrong so it wasn't just suggestion, and it wasn't bad popcorn either) Eventually I figured out that that was the Holy Spirit, He doesn't like being in there and in me at the same time. Maybe He doesn't mind going to them with other people, but He doesn't like to go to them with me. Maybe He's undecided? :wink: Hmmmm. Not likely.

Anyway, thanks for the info, I respect your confession and have no reason to doubt it.

Shalom

Ari

[GoBahnsen]

[QUOTE]
So it is your theology that allows you to be saved at 7, and saved all the way through, until sanctification later. My theology allows for that possibility.
No, sanctification does not come later. Sanctification begins at regeneration, whether it looks much like it or not. This is where Calvinism is synergistic, and Christians can play the fool.

We can resist God in sanctification, but of course He knew all that ahead of time, so He isn't scrambling for plan B and C. God knows David's sin with Bathsheeba is coming before David slays Goliath.

Are you going to say that sanctification is "entire" before it is sanctification?

You know, I made my first comittment at 7 years old also, and AMEN to God's protecting grace! Except, in my case, he kept me from any desire to participate with the world's antics. Praise the Lord. God also placed you a family with a Christian head. With me, He did not. This life is not a level playing field. God sovereignly determines and appoints our boundaries and habitations. What ever good comes of our lives is to the praise of the glory of His grace. Be thankful He kept you from sin my friend. As for me, I must take responsibility for my sin and foolishness. Thankfully Christ was willing to bear my shame and judgment.

I was from that time, only interested in riding God's train, and if, such as when in Bible College, some friends convinced me to go see a movie--even one that was not so bad, I always came out with this sick kind of feeling (no one had told me that movies were wrong so it wasn't just suggestion, and it wasn't bad popcorn either) Eventually I figured out that that was the Holy Spirit, He doesn't like being in there and in me at the same time. Maybe He doesn't mind going to them with other people, but He doesn't like to go to them with me. Maybe He's undecided? :wink: Hmmmm. Not likely. This comes close to smacking of spiritual pride. "Lord I thank you that you did not make me like other men..." Two men went into the Temple, one came out justified.

[Arimathea]

No, sanctification does not come later. Sanctification begins at regeneration, whether it looks much like it or not. This is where Calvinism is synergistic, and Christians can play the fool.

We can resist God in sanctification, but of course He knew all that ahead of time, so He isn't scrambling for plan B and C. God knows David's sin with Bathsheeba is coming before David slays Goliath.

Are you going to say that sanctification is "entire" before it is sanctification?


You use the word "begins" with reference to sanctification, which hints that it is a process, which to all appearances it is. It is interesting that the Bible places the term in the past tense, "sanctified" as though it is already done.
(Heb. 10:29 that pesky Calvinist challenging passage, for example) But then, any good student of predestination can put sanctification in both the past (already complete at the foundations of the earth) and also in the present. So is it entire now, before time, or after future glorification? You tell me. Which came first, the mind of God, or the actions of men? The mind of God, of course.

On a side note, I am continually amazed at how the Calvinist/Arminian debate rages on ad infinitum. I wonder if the Messiah Ben David, and the Messiah Ben Joseph debate by the Jews prior to the coming of Christ was a similar thing. Turns out, they were both wrong, and...right. Maybe its like that again. I can't get interested in it any more, kind of like how I lost interest in debating athiests or evolutionists 20 years ago. You have to mime your way through a whole list of predetermined assumptions, TULIPS, what have you, and then enter the fray by commenting on a fine point within the box, when I think there are serious systemic problems with the assumptions shared by both points of view.

Praise the Lord. God also placed you a family with a Christian head. With me, He did not. This life is not a level playing field. God sovereignly determines and appoints our boundaries and habitations.
Ahh Acts 17:26, obscure, but one of my favorites.


This comes close to smacking of spiritual pride. "Lord I thank you that you did not make me like other men..." Two men went into the Temple, one came out justified.

Of course I am racked with spiritual pride, and many other distasteful stumblings that you would expect of a man in the process of sanctification. Your prayers are much needed. But I'm more sanctified now than I was then, which gives me hope. I've noticed that the longer this goes on, the more separated from the world I become. Where it stops, only the Sanctifier knows. Probably not the movie theatre. :teeth:

At the risk of oversimplification, the salvation process as it is lived out might be compared to a man finding a bottle in a ditch, and thinking, "I could use that" So he picks it up and it becomes his possession. (Justification) Then he takes it home and washes it out so that it can be put into service. (sanctification) Then he fills it with contents. (Holy Spirit baptism) Then--and you ought to like this one--he "seals" with a cap. And that means--well, you know. There's some synergy there, I think, although there is also sequence, which is what we can observe happening in ourselves and others.

Anyway, I owe something to Berean Todd, so Todd if your're still watching, may I offer this parable as a starting point towards your most appropriate question...

A tribe of aboriginies had a huge problem. Their cistern, with which they watered their crops, suddenly broke and drained. The only other source of water was 5 miles away, by foot. The crops were at a crucial stage of development, and if not watered liberally and regularly, they would die. At first, a bucket brigade was arranged, with every able bodied man woman and child carrying water from the river. Then, it was discovered that if all placed their containers on a flat wagon, drawn by oxen, the water could be moved more efficiently, leaving others at home to tend to their chores. The trip to the river passed through a town, where civilization was making headway. The president of a packing company situated there began to notice the strange brigade, and then the water wagon frequently passing by, and inquired as to the nature of the problem that demanded this action. When the situation was explained to him, he asked, had the cistern been repaired? They replied that it had been, but it would not fill up again until the rainy season. Upon learning that the cistern had been repaired, he asked that the wagon be brought into his facility, where it was loaded with an immense block of ice, and covered with burlap and straw. He explained that the ice represented enough water to supply them for many days, and they could come back for more when they needed it. Those who drew the wagon, believed him and brought the wagon excitedly back to the village. However, when the elders saw that the wagon had come back with neither water, nor the containers they left with, for there was no longer room for them on the wagon, they were furious, and executed those in charge of the wagon, and discarded its cargo in the desert.

The moral of the story is this: sometimes a most fitting answer is rejected, because it comes to us in a package we are not expecting.

So Todd, I'm wondering, do you have the time and patience for me to explain just how and why my proposals are biblically relevant, and exceedingly useful to the case at hand, or are you looking for me to just fire off a couple of bible verses with some superficial comments?

Ari

[Berean Todd]

So Todd, I'm wondering, do you have the time and patience for me to explain just how and why my proposals are biblically relevant, and exceedingly useful to the case at hand, or are you looking for me to just fire off a couple of bible verses with some superficial comments?

Ari
If it is your honest contention that women are only to wear dressed, etc, etc, then feel free to go either way, and I will be happy to take apart your argument.

[Ormly]

If it is your honest contention that women are only to wear dressed, etc, etc, then feel free to go either way, and I will be happy to take apart your argument.Nothing conceited about you is there?

Out of curiousity, based on what you can accurately and honestly remember, I'd like you to "take apart" my theology i.e., where it is you 'demand' that I'm wrong about the issues. Think you are up that challenge of truthfulness? :ahem:

[Berean Todd]

Nothing conceited about you is there?
It's not conceited, anyone with any theological sense should see the wrong-headedness of this sort of legalism; moerover, I would think that even you would have issue with that sort of ridiculous claim that women should only wear dresses. Even in my issues with you, you never struck me as this sort of legalist.

Out of curiousity, based on what you can accurately and honestly remember, I'd like you to "take apart" my theology ...
I've repeatedly given you scriptures, which you ignore out of hand, and refuse to respond to. Why would that be, might I ask? Hmmm. Well if you want to talk to me about that, go ahead back to one of those threads, and actually address some of my scriptures. When I get home tonight (likely to be rather late) I will start a new post if you like, and we can begin anew looking at some of the issues we have dispute over.

[smaller]

And SMALLER—Interesting point. Do you advocate following the full Levitical worship system, including sacrifices?[/QUOTE]

Paul "served the law" with his mind.

His flesh was revealed as the dwelling place of "sin" that Paul called "no longer I."

The Law serves to "stir up" sin in the flesh and "empower it" and "reveal it" so that it's presence is "undeniable."

Therefore Israel becomes progressively more corrupt as the sin in them is aroused, stirred, empowered, and revealed.

This is a "spiritual work" of The Law. The final result and expression of "sin" today is the desire in "christianity" to see others burned, annihilated, or separated from God forever.

There is not greater hatred that one person can measure to another person. Those who advance such things are the enemies of love.

God IS Love.

[Arimathea]

If it is your honest contention that women are only to wear dressed, etc, etc, then feel free to go either way, and I will be happy to take apart your argument.
Titus 4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.



Wow. Its not very often one would receive an invitation such as that! If my "argument" is not sound, it well deserves to be taken apart, and replaced with that which is more fitting and helpful to the cause of Christianity in this deceitful age. However, there are a couple of foundational things I may need to mention. The dress issue can no more be isolated from the whole than baptism, or tithing, could be isolated from the larger scope of teaching on Biblical disciplines as an integrated whole. To put a microscope on that to the exclusion of the whole biblical perspective, will certainly result only in misunderstanding both the smaller point and the larger case.



Secondly, I can't take credit for the teachings myself, for they are the work of generations of noble and Godly men, men who changed the face of America in the great awakenings, men who's testimony follows them as pillars of the faith, who's timely urgings perhaps delayed judgment on America for a century and more. Men whom we might mock from the safe distance of history, but in whose presence in real life, we would more likely stand in awe of their inspiring consecration. Men like John Weseley, Gilbert Tennant, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Davies, and a nameless host who at great personal sacrifice took a much needed message to a slipping nation, transformed it and brought it into the presence of God like seldom seen before or since. The revivals were the force that sparked the abolition of slavery, and resulted in new and, for the first time, effective, missionary efforts to the Indians.



Quoting…

It's not conceited, anyone with any theological sense should see the wrong-headedness of this sort of legalism; moerover, I would think that even you would have issue with that sort of ridiculous claim that women should only wear dresses.





Wow. I would respectfully suggest that you take a look at the names included in the list that you have roundly condemned as having no “theological sense,” and the results they produced. Anyone with a Missionary’s heart certainly would know that the greatest missionary age in the history of Christianity was propelled by this movement. In it you have the likes of William Carey, often called “the Father of Missions” taking the gospel to India, and David Livingstone to Africa. With primitive methods, and travel by horse if you were lucky, this movement carried the gospel in a shorter span, to a wider audience in the known world, than has been done to this day. They all taught and practiced what I am promoting. Do you think them all idiots? If with a flippant wave of dismissal, you wish to render judgment on a stream of Christian history with these kinds of results before even hearing it, well, that says more about you, than about the case itself.



Sanctification, as brought by Weseley, was precicely the medicine for the times, for as the Lutheran revival of justification by faith both got broader and thinner, it filled the vacuum left by the rejection of "justification by the Catholic church" but without the necessary caveat that that the new justification could not take on the flavor it had in its former church, namely, now that you are justified, you may "indulge." Justification by faith, became the new incarnation of the Catholic "indulgence" system, with Luther (now dead) claimed as the authority. Luther fought the right battle of his times, no doubt, but that the new justification would not follow the pattern of the old was the theme picked up by Weseley, for there was a second work to take place: Sanctification. Weseley, and the Holiness preachers that followed fought the correct battle of their time, even if they also drifted to questionable doctrines such as "entire sanctification" and "sinless perfection." They put the water on the fire, and placed the emphasis where it needed to be at that time. The modern church today owes them a great debt, for they changed the climate of Christianity as a whole, by their stand, without which, there may not be much of a church in existence today. Luther's teachings may not be accepted in total, but who would question the importance of that man's work? To dismiss the teaching of the Holiness movement without a real grasp of it, you may do to your own peril.



Imagine if you will, some great doctrinal stream of the church, which produced tremendous fruit in the lives of those who partook of it. Suppose through the course of events in a generation or two, this doctrine---and the whole stream in which it came, fell into disrepute, and was forgotten, mischaracterized, and finally a whole generation rose up who knew nothing of it. Then suppose the church of that generation started displaying a whole host of problems, that that very doctrine, and its attendant practices, if known, would antidote precicely. This is the case as we have it. Not only is the doctrine not known, it is passed so beyond the scope of average Christian understanding that it is not known that it is not known. And those few who have rediscovered it, are benefiting greatly from it, and experiencing none of the problems that are pummeling the church at large. Like Hilkiah having found "the book of the law" as it were, we recognize the value of the treasure, and not wanting to hoard it, would share it with others, if they will listen. When something is producing Biblical results, it ought to be explored in the Bible, to see if per chance we have missed something. A good faith attitude is essential for this. From the tone of your posts, I'm not sure we have that here.

Shalom

Ari

[Arimathea]

If it is your honest contention that women are only to wear dressed, etc, etc, then feel free to go either way, and I will be happy to take apart your argument.Titus 4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.



Wow. Its not very often one would receive an invitation such as that! If my "argument" is not sound, it well deserves to be taken apart, and replaced with that which is more fitting and helpful to the cause of Christianity in this deceitful age. However, there are a couple of foundational things I may need to mention. The dress issue can no more be isolated from the whole than baptism, or tithing, could be isolated from the larger scope of teaching on Biblical disciplines as an integrated whole. To put a microscope on that to the exclusion of the whole biblical perspective, will certainly result only in misunderstanding both the smaller point and the larger case.



Secondly, I can't take credit for the teachings myself, for they are the work of generations of noble and Godly men, men who changed the face of America in the great awakenings, men who's testimony follows them as pillars of the faith, who's timely urgings perhaps delayed judgment on America for a century and more. Men whom we might mock from the safe distance of history, but in whose presence in real life, we would more likely stand in awe of their inspiring consecration. Men like John Weseley, Gilbert Tennant, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Davies, and a nameless host who at great personal sacrifice took a much needed message to a slipping nation, transformed it and brought it into the presence of God like seldom seen before or since. The revivals were the force that sparked the abolition of slavery, and resulted in new and, for the first time, effective, missionary efforts to the Indians.



Quoting…

It's not conceited, anyone with any theological sense should see the wrong-headedness of this sort of legalism; moerover, I would think that even you would have issue with that sort of ridiculous claim that women should only wear dresses.





Wow. I would respectfully suggest that you take a look at the names included in the list that you have roundly condemned as having no “theological sense,” and the results they produced. Anyone with a Missionary’s heart certainly would know that the greatest missionary age in the history of Christianity was propelled by this movement. In it you have the likes of William Carey, often called “the Father of Missions” taking the gospel to India, and David Livingstone to Africa. With primitive methods, and travel by horse if you were lucky, this movement carried the gospel in a shorter span, to a wider audience in the known world, than has been done to this day. They all taught and practiced what I am promoting. Do you think them all idiots? How about Hudson Taylor, whom you quote in the byline of your posts. Have you ever seen photographs of his wife? Is he also without any theological sense? If with a flippant wave of dismissal, you wish to render judgment on a stream of Christian history with these kinds of results before even hearing it, perhaps you are revealing more about yourself than about the point in question.



Sanctification, as brought by Weseley, was precicely the medicine for the times, for as the Lutheran revival of justification by faith both got broader and thinner, it filled the vacuum left by the rejection of "justification by the Catholic church" but without the necessary caveat that that the new justification could not take on the flavor it had in its former church, namely, now that you are justified, you may "indulge." Justification by faith, became the new incarnation of the Catholic "indulgence" system, with Luther (now dead) claimed as the authority. Luther fought the right battle of his times, no doubt, but that the new justification would not follow the pattern of the old was the theme picked up by Weseley, for there was a second work to take place: Sanctification. Weseley, and the Holiness preachers that followed fought the correct battle of their time, even if they also drifted to questionable doctrines such as "entire sanctification" and "sinless perfection." The modern church today owes them a great debt, for they changed the climate of Christianity as a whole, by their stand, without which, there may not be much of a church in existence today. Luther's teachings may not be accepted in total, but who would question the importance of that man's work? To dismiss the teaching of the Holiness movement without a real grasp of it, you may do to your own peril.



Imagine if you will, some great doctrinal stream of the church, which produced tremendous fruit in the lives of those who partook of it. Suppose through the course of events in a generation or two, this doctrine---and the whole stream in which it came, fell into disrepute, and was forgotten, mischaracterized, and finally a whole generation rose up who knew nothing of it. Then suppose the church of that generation started displaying a whole host of problems, that that very doctrine, and its attendant practices, if known, would antidote precicely. This is the case as we have it. Not only is the doctrine not known, it is passed so beyond the scope of average Christian understanding that it is not known that it is not known. And those few who have rediscovered it, are benefiting greatly from it, and experiencing none of the problems that are pummeling the church at large. Like Hilkiah having found "the book of the law" as it were, we recognize the value of the treasure, and not wanting to hoard it, would share it with others, if they will listen.



When something is producing biblical results, it ought to be explored in the bible, to see if, per chance, we have missed something. A good faith attitude is essential to this. I’m not sure we have that here.



Ari

[Berean Todd]

Ok Ari, I will admit that the phrasing of my contention with you was to harsh, and appologize for that. However, the issue stands that yes I believe your contention that women must wear dresses is unbiblical, and for all of the leangth and passion of that post of yours you made not one single Biblical defense of it.

So, let me go ahead and state your case, because there is only one. The only scripture you could possibly use to make your contention is the Levitical law stating that women not wear men's clothing and vice-versa. However, you must interpret the Bible rightly - at the time of the writting of that law, MEN did not wear pants. Men wore robes - dresses if you will. Modern dresses were not existant then.

So if we are not applying the standards of the time of that writting to today - and we aren't taking the standards of today (since you are rejecting them) - then what middle point do you affix as the "proper dress standard", and by what authority does that make it the only proper dress?

The Bible teaches that dress should:

1. be modest
2. be distinguishable. men should clearly be men, women clearly women.

That's it. That's the extent of the Biblical mandate. Now, let me ask you something though, since you want to subject us to this law of yours. Let me ask you something, because I'm just kind of curious ...

1) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

2) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

3) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

4) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

5) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

6) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Ok, the above is silly - but if you are trying to keep some of the law, you had better be keeping all of it, keep that in mind. That is from Paul himself - if you make yourself subject to some of the law, be ready to keep all of it. We are not under the law, but under grace.

[Arimathea]

Thanks Todd,



I appreciate your thoughtful post, and your spirit of honest communication.



You have done a good job of summarizing the case that the Reformers and the Revivalists of the last age rejected. These arguments started in their time, and were rejected and refuted, so I will repeat what the likes of Hudson Taylor, (son of a Methodist Minister) or any minister of any repute, would tell you if you sent this post to him. There is a wide scope of argumentation that would be marshaled from the best of history, practice, human physiology, and anthropology, as well as biblical interpretation, and I can’t get into all of that here, but since you seem to be very interested in boiling the whole case down to one particular verse, there’s no problem starting there, just for simplicity sake.



Firstly, concerning the Mosaic Law, and what portions apply in what manner to the present time, it should be noted that the Levitical books as we have them are filled with a patchwork of different kinds of information and commandments. The audience varied between that which was “FOR YOU,” the Israelites, to that which applied as a larger message to all the nations around, to which Israel was to be an “example.” Sometimes it is difficult to tell which commandment applies where. Sometimes it flat out tells you. Many would tell you that the 10 commandments, at least in principle, are not necessarily limited to Levitical worship, but are a timeless Moral Code. (Their posting in the Supreme Court building is an example) But it nowhere says that in the text. Here are some examples of verses targeting different audiences:



Numbers 15:16 One law and one manner shall be FOR YOU AND FOR THE STRANGER that sojourneth with you.



This verse had a scope that included more than just Israelites.



Leviticus 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination UNTO YOU.



This verse had a scope NOT to the world at large, but to Israel.



Other verses do not identify the audience at all, such as when God says, “You shall not muzzle and ox that is treading out the grain.” (Deut 25:4) For all you could tell from the face of it, that commandment was strictly for the nation of Israel, but Paul picks it up and finds an application for the NT church in1 Cor. 9:9. Why on earth is Paul quoting a Levitical law to a Gentile church? In this respect the commandment becomes almost like a proverb, that is, a timeless truth applicable in a much larger scope than its original language would seem. If it could happen with this commandment, it could happen with others. Interestingly, your entire post could be “cut and pasted” as an argument against the Apostle Paul applying this verse to the church as he does. Obviously, this would no more make the case there than it does here. Paul took that commandment, found the kernel of truth in it, and translated it into his times, centuries later, for the benefit of the church. That makes that a valid methodology.



Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for ALL THAT DO SO are abomination unto the LORD thy God.



This verse that you allude to, without quoting, is one of the few that specifically states its scope, more clearly than the 10 commandments do, which many today consider applicable, and even more clearly than the example of oxen and grain, which Paul uses to teach the church. Note the scope “….ALL WHO DO SO are an abomination.” In this, God was setting forth a commandment that would allow his chosen people to exemplify his will, in contrast to the practices of those nations existent at the time who were practicing cross-dressing. (Which opened the door to many other ungodly practices) They were to be a “light” to those nations. If ALL who did these things were an abomination, certainly His chosen people should not do them. (As an interesting side study, it can be demonstrated that a very consistent factor in the fall of every great civilization, was in their final stages, the male/female distinctions became blurred with respect to their attire.)



Also note the strongest of language abomination, puts this verse in a class with the most severe sins, including the idolatry of the nations around them, and homosexuality, and other perversions. (Would anyone argue that THESE things no longer apply?) Regardless of your interpretation, anyone with sincere intent of walking in the will of God should tread most carefully where language this strong is used of a particular practice.



To declare that Deut. 22:5 applies “only to Israel” is much easier to do when you just “refer to it,” as you did, than when you actually quote it. Let’s keep it in front of us while we talk about it. (I believe it was you that insisted we keep the context in mind. I will of course expect you to abide by your own recommendation…”ALL who do so…,” that’s the context)



It is also instructive to note the interpretive history of this verse, as we find it in Commentary editions published prior to the 1900’s, as compared to after the 1900s. The interpretational “fashion” changed as the clothing fashions changed. 3000 years of interpretational history is on one side, 100 years is on the other. Things are piling up here, we have

1. The testimony of history

2. Of grammar

3. The best of Christian Tradition, and

4. Proven results, all on one side



…and on the other side…a modern experiment with dubious beginnings, and even more dubious results! None of your example verses to which you compare Deut. 22:5 could claim even ONE of these testimonies, in favor of their being applied in the present. There is simply no comparison.



Now that we have looked at what is on the face of it, let’s delve a little deeper into the verse itself. The verse speaks to much more than just physical attire. An examination of the language “ pertains to a man” means just that, anything, that pertains to a man. In mind may be the vestments of war, and the priestly offices, and more. It is a statement about roles in general, with attire the visual aid set forth to reinforce those roles, by making a clear distinction. This is what I keep harping on—this is not just an independent issue—it is a whole stream of thought, one that the church once understood, but has forgotten.



This stream of thought is well in keeping with the spirit of the New Testament, as where Paul says, of women, “they should remain silent in church, AS ALSO SAITH THE LAW.” (1 Cor. 14:34) He ties it all together—church and law. Where does the law say that? You have to get into the spirit of the law. These things are not cultural, but timeless. They cross over from Old Testament to New. They may have fallen out of fashion, but the scripture has not changed with the fashions. The Apostle is letting you know that the Law taught these things, they are nothing new, and they represent a consistent over-arching theme which applies to the church, even though there was no church in the time of the Law.



If one wanted to “argue” with Paul, he might demand: Where??!! Where does the Law say that women have to do that?! Chapter and Verse! The great Apostle shakes his head at the ignorant question. It’s the spirit of the law, as any devout Jew knows, but Gentiles ignorant of even the most basic things, don’t.



Certainly in marshalling a Biblical argument for this critic, Deut 22:5 would come up, for there is a clear distinction taught, both in roles, and dress. Add to that its wide sweeping scope—and it becomes a prime candidate to be understood as a timeless truth---like a proverb. This is how the church has understood it, up until the latest sliver of history. In our century, many attempts have been made to blur gender distinctions, and gender roles, and dress is always a part of it—a visual aid in the negative, rather than the positive, as God laid it out. The two go together. (If dress means nothing, why do feminists and lesbians use it to reinforce their philosophy? They use it because it is a very powerful visual aid, and it does not just reflect behavior, it affects behavior--but the bible already told us that, centuries ago.)



It is common to think nowadays in this age of “theological amnesia” that this case rests solely on a narrow interpretation of a single verse, as you have suggested. Actually, the narrow interpretation is practiced by those trying to wiggle out of it. This is almost juvenile compared to the devout and sophisticated manner of those who developed the doctrine from scripture, and proved it out in experience. They had an entire broad philosophy, based on a well-developed stream of scriptural thought, of which the issue of dress was an important component.



Now a word or two using the consummate example of “law keeping” as discussed in the New Testament, Circumcision. Even if all of the above were false, say the practice properly does not apply in this latest sliver of history. (By which everything that went before is rendered error.) But even if so, consider the fact that Paul, who taught most militantly against circumcision, had no problem applying the practice where it would help the gospel, that is, he himself circumcised Timothy, a Gentile! This is so convoluted on so many points, and flies in the face of practically all of Paul’s teaching, it could certainly have been resisted by Timothy on numerous grounds--the grounds of the Gospel, on the grounds of Paul’s own teaching, on the grounds that it would encourage the Judaisers, on the grounds of the fact that he was a Gentile, and a grown man—and it would most certainly not be pleasant, and to top it off the whole thing was an unsuccessful attempt to “keep the peace” on a weekend trip to Jerusalem. You have to admire Timothy. I wish the church today had more of his attitude. Even if and when you have every right to something—out of respect for the gospel, and the situation at large, you give up your rights, just for the chance that it might help. That is the attitude of Christ. Lay down your life. Lay down your rights. Sacrifice them for the good of the Gospel. Our today church sings, “I surrender all.” But is not willing to surrender anything, and will fight tooth and nail for the smallest of “rights.” Just try and ask them to give something up, and watch the mud hit the fan! Its an attitudinal problem.



That being the case, it is not hard at all for me to imagine, if that great Apostle were brought to see the church as we have it today—cross dressing, homosexual clergy, a divorce rate higher than the world, scandals between the pastor and his piano player, all kinds of gender confusion, feeding on the things of the world, teen pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, broken homes, fornication, all suddenly showing up in record numbers over the past 50 years, and then be shown the church 100 years ago, and their manner of life and testimony, he would reinstate Deut. 22:5 so fast it would make your head spin, just as an emergency measure to stop the bleeding, and inject some orderliness and sanity into a church spinning out of control.



And one more personal note…Nowadays we are very prone to think that bible doctrines stand and fall on pencil and paper—like mathematical proofs. But this is far from the methodology that is exemplified in the bible itself. Bible doctrines are like seeds, which go into the ground and produce plants, which produce fruits, which can be examined. On this particular issue, I am not offering you a proof in “word only,” for nothing can really be proven that way. I can show you a Bible case, show you that it is reasonable, show you that it is possible, show you that it is historical, grammatical, and flesh it out a lot more than I have in this brief post, but beyond that, I can testify first hand to the positive effects of this doctrine in a life, a family, and a church. I can see these fruits in history, but I have also tested them in the present. I know what I am speaking of. If they worked then, and they work now, perhaps they are, as the church has always taught, timeless.



Shalom



Ari

[gary cook]

What a person needs ?Is a personal relationship with JESUS CHRIST ?Then the righteous acts will follow .Why or how can the world judge these things .They do not see .So you MUST love them and be long suffering .You desire to see the cart ?Before the horse .It can not be .But YOU can be a FOOT WASHER and an example to a dying world This is YOUR CALLING .Humble your self .Look past there faults ?And LOVE THEM .judge not ?least YOU be judged He come to us where we are .And starts there .We must LOVE ,LOVE ,love .Then they will see ?And ASK you for TRUTh .Then YOU can give your testamony .And one day ?recieve GREAT REWARD .But you will be BLESSED HERE TOO Forgive me ?If I judged you wrong ?

[smaller]

Greetings Ari


It is common to think nowadays in this age of “theological amnesia” that this case rests solely on a narrow interpretation of a single verse, as you have suggested. Actually, the narrow interpretation is practiced by those trying to wiggle out of it.

A classic statement of Truth Ari. I agree with many of your points in your last post to B. Todd.

I am curious however in whether you adhere to the doctrine of eternal torment for "unbelieving mankind" that The Jews did not have, nor do they to this day?

[Arimathea]

What a person needs ?Is a personal relationship with JESUS CHRIST ?Then the righteous acts will follow .Why or how can the world judge these things .They do not see .So you MUST love them and be long suffering .You desire to see the cart ?Before the horse .It can not be .But YOU can be a FOOT WASHER and an example to a dying world This is YOUR CALLING .Humble your self .Look past there faults ?And LOVE THEM .judge not ?least YOU be judged He come to us where we are .And starts there .We must LOVE ,LOVE ,love .Then they will see ?And ASK you for TRUTh .Then YOU can give your testamony .And one day ?recieve GREAT REWARD .But you will be BLESSED HERE TOO Forgive me ?If I judged you wrong ?
Gary--you are absolutely right in the order of things. Many things in our Christian experience come by process. We are all in process. People just have different opinions as to where exactly that process leads, and what it includes. There are many things we do in Christian practice, baptism, communion, some practice foot washing, tithing, to name a few, but none are laws in the legal sense. For everyone of those things, you could find a group that makes a law out of it, and attaches it to Salvation. I don't believe that at all. Baptism doesn't save you. Communion does not save you. Jesus saves you--but he also has some things for you to do once He has saved you. He gives us things to practice as Christians, and we understand the meaning behind them. This used to be the case with respect to dressing also, but the church has forgotton the why's of it in this generation--unique to this generation I might add. It's not about judging anyone, its about practicing what is most helpful to our faith in the present age. Thank you for your exhortation. May I not soon forget it.

Ari

[Arimathea]

Greetings Ari



A classic statement of Truth Ari. I agree with many of your points in your last post to B. Todd.

I am curious however in whether you adhere to the doctrine of eternal torment for "unbelieving mankind" that The Jews did not have, nor do they to this day?

OK, take two. I had a nice reply going to you before I kicked the cord and unplugged the computer!

Obviously you have some unique points of view--you would have to to agree with me! But you would ask me that. I'm trying to get myself stoned on one issue at a time. :sigh: In short answer--I will quote it the way you put it, I dont "adhere to the doctrine of eternal torment" the way it is normally taught. I think there is a great deal of confusion on this topic, and some just plain ignorance. There's history to learn, close examination of Bible verses, some greek and Hebrew words, placing of foundational doctrines, Jewish tradition, etc., all part of seeing how the current understanding came down to us, and how it is not quite right. But that makes a long and convoluted subject to get into, and its not one that I go to first, having more important battles to fight first. In your case, this issue is more of a priority, I understand.

I would ask you this... a minister, a man that I know well and trust, a man from my church, is in India right now on a preaching tour. He believes the way I believe, and his wife dresses as my wife does. He sent back a testimony of a man who was raised from the dead by the power of the Gospel. Believest thou this?

Ari

[smaller]

OK, take two. I had a nice reply going to you before I kicked the cord and unplugged the computer!

Obviously you have some unique points of view--you would have to to agree with me! But you would ask me that. I'm trying to get myself stoned on one issue at a time. :sigh: In short answer--I will quote it the way you put it, I dont "adhere to the doctrine of eternal torment" the way it is normally taught. I think there is a great deal of confusion on this topic, and some just plain ignorance. There's history to learn, close examination of Bible verses, some greek and Hebrew words, placing of foundational doctrines, Jewish tradition, etc., all part of seeing how the current understanding came down to us, and how it is not quite right. But that makes a long and convoluted subject to get into, and its not one that I go to first, having more important battles to fight first. In your case, this issue is more of a priority, I understand.

I would ask you this... a minister, a man that I know well and trust, a man from my church, is in India right now on a preaching tour. He believes the way I believe, and his wife dresses as my wife does. He sent back a testimony of a man who was raised from the dead by the power of the Gospel. Believest thou this?

Ari

Love is very powerful. Love is all that matters, all that has ever mattered. All that will ever matter. God is Love and His Will will abide forever.

For my part I do not believe there is a scripture from God or His Christ that says to people of any "dress" "I love you and I demand that you must love me or I'll torture you forever!

We can say that Love will be modest though eh?

I do believe in eternal torment, just not for people.

enjoy!

smaller

[porter]

That being the case, it is not hard at all for me to imagine, if that great Apostle were brought to see the church as we have it today—cross dressing, homosexual clergy, a divorce rate higher than the world, scandals between the pastor and his piano player, all kinds of gender confusion, feeding on the things of the world, teen pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, broken homes, fornication, all suddenly showing up in record numbers over the past 50 years, and then be shown the church 100 years ago, and their manner of life and testimony, he would reinstate Deut. 22:5 so fast it would make your head spin, just as an emergency measure to stop the bleeding, and inject some orderliness and sanity into a church spinning out of control.


What is your thinking with regard to gender roles?

Should women be subordinant to men?

Should women be allowed to be pastors?
Or is that a role for men only?

Should women be allowed to read scripture before the congregation?

Should women be allowed to teach adults?
Or should they be limited to teaching children?

Should women be allowed to have positions of leadership outside of the church?
Should they be able to be the head of corporations?
Should they be able to be the head of universities?
Should they be able to be Senators?
Should they be able to be President of the United States?

Is the headship issue restricted to husband and wife, or does it have broader implications?

It is my opinion that Adam and Eve were equal before the Fall (Gen 2:18).
But after the Fall women were made subordinate (Gen 3:16).
As Christians who are saved should we continue to model our behavior on the Fall because we are still sinners, or should we model it on the New Jerusalem?

I believe in the equality of men and women.
I also believe like you that there should be visible signs of the difference.
Hair and clothing are two ways to show this.
But I also believe that capable women should be allowed to have leadership positions.

Porter

[kofh2u]

What is your thinking with regard to gender roles?

Should women be subordinant to men?

Should women be allowed to be pastors?
Or is that a role for men only?

Should women be allowed to read scripture before the congregation?

Should women be allowed to teach adults?
Or should they be limited to teaching children?

Should women be allowed to have positions of leadership outside of the church?
Should they be able to be the head of corporations?
Should they be able to be the head of universities?
Should they be able to be Senators?
Should they be able to be President of the United States?

Is the headship issue restricted to husband and wife, or does it have broader implications?

It is my opinion that Adam and Eve were equal before the Fall (Gen 2:18).
But after the Fall women were made subordinate (Gen 3:16).
As Christians who are saved should we continue to model our behavior on the Fall because we are still sinners, or should we model it on the New Jerusalem?

I believe in the equality of men and women.
I also believe like you that there should be visible signs of the difference.
Hair and clothing are two ways to show this.
But I also believe that capable women should be allowed to have leadership positions.

Porter


But aren't women the essence of the problem?


Isa. 3:18 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their
tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round
tires like the moon,

Isa. 3:19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,

Isa. 3:20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the
headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,

Isa. 3:21 The rings, and nose jewels,

Isa. 3:22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the
wimples, and the crisping pins,

Isa. 3:23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the
veils.

[Arimathea]

[
QUOTE=porter]What is your thinking with regard to gender roles?

Should women be subordinant to men?

Should women be allowed to be pastors?
Or is that a role for men only?

Should women be allowed to read scripture before the congregation?

Should women be allowed to teach adults?
Or should they be limited to teaching children?

Should women be allowed to have positions of leadership outside of the church?
Should they be able to be the head of corporations?
Should they be able to be the head of universities?
Should they be able to be Senators?
Should they be able to be President of the United States?

Is the headship issue restricted to husband and wife, or does it have broader implications?






Hi Porter,

Welcome to the most controversial topic on TWEB, if not in the world, the roles of men and women! I don’t know how far you read back, but will assume that your questions are honest, and not an attempt through the sheer volume of them to make some other kind of point. Having said that, its hard (not just because its hard, but also because I don’t have that much free time) to write a response to every question. So how about some principles that could be applied across the many specific instances? I’ll be working from the assumption that the Bible is the authority on this topic. Skipping a lot, but, here goes…



First of all, there is a difference between what is expected of the church, and what is expected in the world. The church is a special society, with its own beginning, current practice, and destiny all different from the world.



I Cor 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth.



So why try to apply church standards to the world, who know not their right hand from their left?



Secondly, the “Ecclesia” “church” literally, “the called out” stands in the type of the Israel (the original “called out”) and the leadership of the church, stands in the type of the Priesthood. Israel had both a Political and a Religious element which is the backdrop for all of this. It is with the Israelite Ceremonial gatherings, that Paul drew his comparison when he said “Let your women be silent..as also saith the law.” Getting into his frame of thought, women were silent with respect to the ceremonies, for all the officiating priests were men, of the Levites, line of Aaron.



But they were not “silent” with respect to the political offices of the land. For example, Deborah held a very important political office, judge of Israel, for which she was never rebuked. Women could have political offices, but not religious ones.



I believe both the Old and New Testament are in harmony on this, that women can do whatever they are qualified to do outside of the ceremonial gathering, but inside, everyone is playing a sort of dramatic role, stepping into a type if you will, and should maintain those types, if they understand what they are about.



This is not only spoken of in the New Testament, it is modeled out in the New Testament. Jesus chose 12 disciples, all men, and Paul ordained men, Timothy and Titus, named them, and flat out said that’s the way it should be done. To me, its really not complicated. When a woman steps into the role of a “pastor” it throws every type in the Bible into a crazy spin. She is a walking “mixed message,” affirming the bible in speech, but modeling something different. Such things cannot be done without negative repercussions in the health of the congregation. It may take time for them to show up, but they always do.



As to your question of Pre-Fall, Post Fall, and types to the New Jerusalem, in general, the man is typing Christ, the woman is typing the church. Hair is a symbol of faithfulness, the growth of hair is symbolic of a vow kept (the length of the hair signifying the length of time faithful to it) The church is in the time of “remaining faithful” until He comes, and women are typing that.



In my opinion, we are not Pre-Fall yet, for at that time, Adam and the woman were more than “equal,” they were actually one being, male and female in a single person, and the woman was taken out of the side of Adam. (as the church was taken out of the side of Christ) There is a re-uniting (wedding day, complete with wedding supper and all) on the agenda, but we are in the engagement period now, with the “ring of promise” being the Holy Spirit, a deposit as the scripture says, surity of what is coming. Marriage, and our roles here on earth, are types of these great spiritual realities. In other words, the Bible did not go out looking for something to compare it to and lit upon “marriage” as a good example, rather, Marriage was invented by God to begin with for that purpose, to type Spiritual realities, as an object lesson, and visual aid that would stand before us at all times. So in our gender roles we are acting all of this out.



Also, pre-Fall they were naked. If we aren’t ready to go naked again, we demonstrate there’s still a ways to go before the full restoration!



As for equality, it is interesting that when the Bible talks about the soul, it uses a genderless term. The Blood of Christ is equally applied to all souls who believe. The different roles that we play while here has nothing to do with one person being more or less “valuable” than another. Same with spiritual gifts—are all Apostles? Are all Teachers? No, but all are Christians. Its kind of like the military, where you could have a General and a Private, each with all the full rights of the Laws of the United states bestowed upon them as citizens, they are equal in that respect, but they play different roles in serving the United States.



There’s my humble (and abbreviated) opinion, taken in large measure, from what the church has taught concerning these things until recent times. To me, it all seems quite Biblical.



Ari

[Arimathea]

Surely you jest. Most any problem in the church can be traced back to a failure in the pulpits, in my opinion. No, the blame cannot be placed on women, it is shared, at the very least.

Ari

[porter]

I believe both the Old and New Testament are in harmony on this, that women can do whatever they are qualified to do outside of the ceremonial gathering, but inside, everyone is playing a sort of dramatic role, stepping into a type if you will, and should maintain those types, if they understand what they are about.

Ari, thank you for a most illuminating post.

With a few words on principle you have answered most of my questions about secular leadership.

I understand that from Biblical principle women should not be pastors.
But I would like you to answer specifically the specific questions I asked about women's participation in the church.

Should women be allowed to read scripture before the congregation?

Should women be allowed to teach adults?
An example would be an adult Bible study group.

It seems to me that if women can obtain Doctor of Divinity degrees and teach religious subjects in universities that they are qualified to teach adults in church Bible study.

In my church (ELCA) the pastor is a man, but his wife acts as an assistant pastor.
This arrangement seemed perfectly appropriate to me until I read your post.
I assume you disagree with this arrangement.

Have you read Glenn Miller's argument about women's participation in service?

Porter

[Arimathea]

Hi Porter,

Those are very good questions, and you're right I do have some thoughts about those issues, that are not popular nowadays. To address those kinds of things in today's environment, is to enter a mine field, culturally, and Biblically.

Before I respond, I want to pray a bit, do due diligence to try and have the mind of the Lord on the subject. Thank you for your interest. Will work on it later.

Ari

[Arimathea]

Hi Porter, I have been out of town for a few days. Here’s some thoughts on your most important questions.



I have debated over this, should I talk about the scriptures pertaining to this issue? Perhaps, but likely you have looked at them already, and are aware of what they say. I have not read Glen Miller’s argument, but I have noticed that all of these arguments showed up after the decision had already been made in fact, that is, women had already entered the roles of pastor and teacher, and these arguments dutifully appeared to provide a theology for it. That, to me, is backwards, and puts a big question mark over any case that is set forth. I rather try to get into the stream scripture, see it running in continuity from cover to cover, and then compare what is happening around me to that. I prefer to judge experience by the bible, rather than judging the bible by experience.



So I’m going to take a broader angle. Let’s start instead by taking a thought from General Revelation. We can see that when God creates something, from the smallest insect, to the entire universe, his habit is to make it synergistic—that is many parts, all working in harmony to the benefit of the whole.



Before looking at the church, look at the rest of God’s creation, to see how he operates. Look at how the constellations of the zodiac are so precise and regular, that calendars based on them out perform the best modern calendars that man can invent. Every star is perfectly in its place, perfectly on time.



Look at the earth, and the cycle of life. The earth is full of eco-systems, that is, long chains of symbiotic relationships between plants and animals, each playing a specific role. It has been shown that entire eco-systems can be destroyed by changing one element. Remove this plant, and that bug dies. That bug dies, and another plant dies. That plant dies and another animal dies. And so on.



God glories in creating systems like this, they are, his M.O, the stamp of His signature on creation. Now, take the church—the church is His creation too, and it is described as a body. A body is really a complex eco-system as Paul pointed out, each part playing its part for the benefit of the whole. That tells me that everything about the church is operating according to a specific design, and it is not flexible to experimentation without negative side effects. Even the smallest matter is indispensable. What God designed and created is perfect, and changes do not improve upon it, rather, they destroy it. (Though perhaps not immediately, but over time)



You can see where this is going. If it is true that from Old Testament through the New, God ordained women in one role with respect to leadership in the church, and men in another. And if that trend continued through church history pretty much unbroken until recent modern times. If it can be seen that in the wake of that change, many problems have entered the church. Then I’m looking for the break in the eco-system that set off the disintegrating chain reaction. With that in mind, let’s look at your questions:



I understand that from Biblical principle women should not be pastors.

Should women be allowed to read scripture before the congregation?

Should women be allowed to teach adults?
An example would be an adult Bible study group.

It seems to me that if women can obtain Doctor of Divinity degrees and teach religious subjects in universities that they are qualified to teach adults in church Bible study.



I have come to realize that the Bible itself works like an eco-system. Every scripture, every word is in place deliberately, as God said, the Law of the Lord is perfect. When one scripture is “moved” other scriptures react to that, and must be moved also. Pretty soon, the whole thing is in confusion. But if you just leave it alone, it is stunningly harmonious with itself.



For example, let’s look at the rules concerning the ordaining of pastors, from Titus and Timothy.



5 ¶ For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

6 ¶ If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;

9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.



Now try applying that to a woman pastor—she must be the “husband of one wife.” How is she going to do that? Is the church now Lesbian, or must we modify the verse? We modify the verse, of course, to let the woman in.



God is a “Father” and the whole kingdom of God is built on the “family model.” In continuity, the church patterns that on earth, and is built on the model of the family also. Therefore, to qualify for an office in the church, a man must have his household in order.



1 Tim. 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;





Now, if the man is to have rule over his own household, in order to hold a church office, then does that mean that a woman, by virtue of having a church office, now becomes the head of her house? Her husband is now in subjection to her? Oh, what a tangled web we weave.



But if you go from the ground up—an orderly household is the basis for an orderly church, because the church grows out of proven leadership in the house. If a man has dysfunctions in his household, and enters the ministry, it would only follow that those same dysfunctions would project out onto his church. How much more a woman, who has turned her whole household on its head?



Moving on… if a woman is to be quiet in church, and if she has a question, ask her husband at home, then if the woman is pastor, does her husband now have to be silent in church, and ask his wife at home?



1 Cor. 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

36 ¶ What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.





But if a man has a question, his source is the pastor, but if his pastor is a woman, and she is to ask her husband, then who does he ask, him or her? See how it all falls apart?



This is getting long, but I’m trying to show something that it takes some patience to exemplify. I trust you get the idea. You can’t tamper with perfection, you will ruin it. The Bible is perfect.



Also, its not just teaching that matters, in the verbal sense, but modeling. The pastor’s household must model a Godly orderly household for the whole congregation. If a woman is now the pastor of her own husband, it gets so crazy you can’t follow it through the scripture, verse after verse has to be modified to fit the situation.



Now this is all on the negative side, but if we would just read the bible, we would find that there are many more verses that tell a woman what she SHOULD do than what she should not. About 3 to 1 by my count one time. Why not let her focus on THAT instead? Then the whole thing will take care of itself automatically.



Let’s look at your questions now.



We are in the age of understanding, and the way these questions come it sounds like a rigid list of rules. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I give these answers because I understand the dangers of tampering with the details of an ecosystem, and because I can see why God set it up this way, and I happen to agree with Him. It’s not a matter of rigid and arbitrary laws. Israel was “drafted.” But the church is made of volunteers. We take up the program willingly.



Can a woman read scripture before a congregation? Probably, but why not have a man do it and get the modeling right? Can she teach a bible study? I’m quite certain that she can do it, in the sense of being mentally and physically able, but that’s not what qualifies. What if my car can drive 65 mph through a school zone? Should I do it? We have rules to keep order and for good reason. If God ordained men to teach, you have to believe He will also have equipped and sent a man to do it. He may be in rebellion, rejecting the call, or just plain lazy, but he is there, let him step up. If she continues to teach, there will be results—but not without side affects that may be hard to see at first. This sowing will have a reaping somewhere down the road.



When the bible says women should be silent in the church, I don’t think that means she doesn’t make a peep. She can certainly pray, sing, testify, prophecy, operate in the spiritual gifts. But silent in respect to the centerpiece of the gathering, which is the ministry of the Word. It is the Word that brings life, and salvation, and atonement for sins, which places it in the type of the Old Testament sacrifice, which was the work of the Priest.



My experience, is that when women step down, even when it looks like the thing will fall apart, it forces men to step up, and you find they have been there all along, just taking it easy as long as the woman is doing the work. Should women be allowed to teach adults? Why should she have to teach them? “Able to teach” is one of the qualifications of a pastor given in the verses above. Let him do what he is able, and clearly ordained to do. Nothing is left undone when you do it God’s way. All the teaching that is needed is right there.



It seems to me that if women can obtain Doctor of Divinity degrees and teach religious subjects in universities that they are qualified to teach adults in church Bible study.



This may sound strange coming from me because I have a 4 year degree in Bible, but I have come to realize that that such things just are not on the list of bible ministerial qualifications. Take an uncalled man, and give him a bible education, and he’s still an uncalled man. Take a God-called man, and take away his formal education, and he’s still a God-called man. The Bible never mentions education as being necessary, and God calls and places “uneducated men” such as Peter, and in fact, the concept of Bible schools did not occur to anyone until many centuries of Christian history had passed. What did the churches DO all that time? They did it God’s way, they recognized who He was calling, and supported that gift and call. Now, if no woman is called to this office, as I believe the scripture teaches, no amount of education is going to change that fact.



And I might add, if a woman has now taken on another role, who is doing her role, that is now left undone? Who is doing her duties, including modeling, better than she could have? If on a football team, the line decides they want to go out for passes, who is protecting the quarterback? And if the recievers are now on the line, they are going to get creamed, the quarterback is going to get sacked, and the recievers are getting worn out, and the whole team will soon be injured, frustrated, and losing.



God calls men and women to different roles because He equips them differently. Men simply cannot do what God equipped a woman to do do as well as she can. And vice versa. The church today is like an eco-system spinning out of control, and it all goes back to tinkering with the fundamentals.



I believe that the Devil is mocking the church. He’s got them so turned around that they don’t even know the basics, and they are getting pummelled left and right, and they don’t even know why. He’s got recievers on the line and the line going out for passes. We are being mocked and laughed at. He’s luring women way out into the field, while their own homes and families fall apart, and the men stumble along bewildered at it all. Its embarrassing to see. All this was not apparent when it began, but now we are a couple of generations into it.



Now, I know that there are many situations in existance, such as yours, where women have already stepped into those roles. I am, as a Christian, supposed to tell you to follow your pastor. He is to be your primary source of spiritual leadership, not me. But when the church has the whole thing out of order, it creates a quandry for me. How can I tell you to follow what is not Biblical? I know this—I do not believe in stomping in to a congregation and making demands. Chances are the people there are sincere as can be. But the whole thing has progressed so far that it may be irreversable, and many people are just plain ignorant—well meaning, but ignorant, and beyond correction.



I believe in teaching and confessing, testifying, and modeling the proper way in my own life and circles. But what others do with it is between them and God, not me. I would hope that, if you come to believe these things, you will be able to remain in your congregation graciously as long as God allows you to be there. For me, I came to the point where I simply had to find a congregation that was practicing this, moved my family across the State to attend there, and have never regretted it. I have found that where these things are practiced, there is a striking lack of the disorder and underachievement that I found in other churches I have been a part of, and can see in the church at large. That, to me, proves the continuity of the scripture in the world that I live in.





Sorry to be so lengthy,



Ari

[MrTulip]

Legalism is the idea that people get to heaven by being good. A little legalism is sin and reviles the cross of Christ. We should be convicted when legalistic thinking takes hold of our mind, knowing that it denies the very work of Jesus.

The Lord clearly calls us to live a life of purity and to be filled with the Holy Spirit. God's very presence is dwelling inside of those who know Him. God is Holy and sin grieves the Holy Spirit. This is not legalism. It is biblical truth.

Being unconfortable is not legalism, it is called conviction. In today's increasingly humanistic theology legalism is confused with being called to live a life set apart unto God. That is not legalism. It is freedom. It is knowledge of God lived in reverent fear.

It is against a life lived wanting everything of God's presence and wanting it so badly that we desire nothing to cause the Holy Spirit dwelling in our hearts to be grieved, but desire earnestly to be filled and so completely filled that Jesus is at the center of every motivation and thought holding our minds captive to His glorious grace.

It is also praying knowing that our prayers are not answered because of even the slightest thing good we have done, but to the glory of God, which shows His clear love towards us.

Michael

[Forrest]

A Little Legalism Never Hurt Anybody




Great post!

I would say though that it’s better to teach and keep principles such as modesty and separation rather than make rules out of them. When you start making them into rules you eventually fall into this…

Isa 28:9-13 (KJV) Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. {10} For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept (rule upon rule); line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: {11} For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. {12} To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. {13} But the word of the LORD was unto them (rule upon rule) precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

This is not to say rules are bad, it is to say when we make them our governor then the principles become lost to tradition. Let me give you an example of my own personal rules.

I always put my shopping cart in the rack, not leaving it in the parking lot like so many do. I also don’t wait while somebody loads their groceries so I can have their parking space, especially if there are other cars waiting behind me. Why? The principle is consideration of others! BUT, I have found myself from time to time growing a little frustrated, even angry, when I see somebody else break these rules. Why? Because I’ve forgotten the principle and latched onto the rule! In that case I have “lost” my principle of consideration for others and become legalistic!

I will say the principles of separation and modesty are important. And I will also say that making rules out of these is fine as long as the principles are not forgotten, that is the why you are keeping the rules. Rules fail quickly once the principle is forgotten!

And once the principle is forgotten the rules become a snare and then what is quoted in the scripture above happens...they fall backward.

[gary cook]

Walking in our spirit,is allowing our inner man[spirit born of GOD]to rule over the flesh.Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Our outward minds,are just like computers.What we allow to enter them,will affect each of us!
2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.