Balancing The Christian Life

159 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

It appears there is confusion between legalism and standards,  However, when one imposes their standards and expect others to live by them or they break fellowship, that is a form of legalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I dont know, do you look around here? Some people are more concerned with Bible translations more than justice, mercy and more important seeing people come to Christ which is our mission


I have noticed that a few people do seem to have a problem understanding that, upon joining the forum, the Bible we quote here is the KJV. But, no , I havent noticed a lack of concern for the other things you mentioned - and I've been here a good while...Seeing people come to Christ isn't all we are to do.
Miss Daisy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Many years ago the KJB was considered 8th grade level, but that was back when they still actually educated children and expected them to learn. By todays standards the KJB has been moved to the 12th grade level with some now beginning to say it's college level; along with the works of Shakespeare and some others.

 

I graduated high school in 1981 and at least a half dozen students could read between the barely functional and about a 5th or 6th grade level.

 

Many times today it's much worse; which is why most colleges have remedial reading programs (along with many other classes to try and catch students up to the high school level).

 

Many high school graduates today can barely read, write and spell; have little mathematical skills and are almost totally ignorant of history or even current affairs.

 

That's a problem of failure to educate students (and in some cases of students failure to put any effort into learning), not a problem with the KJB.

 

Other than people with cognitive impairments, I've not known anyone who really tried to learn to read and understand the KJB who couldn't do so.

 

An important point we should keep in mind is the necessity of help from the Holy Ghost to truly understand the Word of God. If one doesn't have the Holy Ghost or simply ignores the Holy Ghost and tries to do it all on their own, they will fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Can you be more specific, Jeffrey?  

How is the Gospel effecting you and your neighbors? is it making a difference? I know Christians who don't know their neighbors, don't interact with their community and rather hide from community/culture rather than engage it. You can do that with the KJV, NIV ESV 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

I always say if your culture agrees with the Bible keep your culture but if it doesn't then you have to get rid of your culture.  Sad thing many throw away the Bible and get a new version that allows them wrongly join the word of truth with their culture

Culture is what it is, a culture have their own nuances. some may or not be sinful compared to other cultures, alcohol for one. most cultures, it's just alcohol. In Muslim and IFB circles, its sin.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I live in a small town so everyone knows everyone else and knows their "religious" standing.

 

One of my neighbors attends the same church we do, another attends a different church, three other neighbors have their own religious ideas and are not interested in hearing from others about it. Out of all my neighbors, two and possibly three are saved.

 

As James said we should be, we are doers of the Word, not hearers only. Our faith isn't confined to the internet or the inside of our church.

Miss Daisy and HappyChristian like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

er

How is the Gospel effecting you and your neighbors? is it making a difference? I know Christians who don't know their neighbors, don't interact with their community and rather hide from community/culture rather than engage it. You can do that with the KJV, NIV ESV 

 

I take the Word of God to people in my area.  I have witnessed to my neighbors, so I am pretty sure that they know I am a Bible believing Christian.  We have lived in my home for four years.  One of my next door neighbors, might be convicted, b/c she hides from me.  The first year I moved in, she was very friendly, however, I shared the Word of God with her and she ignores me now.  I have shared God's Word with the other next door neighbor and she speaks with me.  Actually, she is quite open to hearing God's Word.  When I go about town, I witness every chance I get.  I leave gospel tracts, but the Lord also gives me many opportunities to share God's Word and my testimony with other people.  As a church, we went door knocking, in my town last summer.  My pastor got a call from the city saying that a neighbor complained.  We are working to get that resolved by an IFB attorney, as we believe it is Satan that doesn't want us in the community.  People in my town are hungry for the Word of God.  I see it everyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I believe in the preserved word but not in the KJVO.  However, if I post scriptures, I will use KJ out of respect for the forum rules.  I usually paraphrase.

Paraphrase: Is that what God says: along with what man says; that God meant to say??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Paraphrase: Is that what God says: along with what man says; that God meant to say??

It hasn't been proven in any other post that the KJV is the only Bible we should use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It hasn't been proven in any other post that the KJV is the only Bible we should use.

Post #14:

GraceSaved, just a note from the Online Baptist rules: 3) Feel free to quote the Bible, if you do we ask that you use the KJV. This is done to avoid confusion.

The Administrators and Moderators of this site believe that the KJV is Gods preserved Word for the English speaking people, and we ask that you respect that and use the KJV when quoting scripture.

candlelight likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Are you seriously saying you cannot understand Collosians chapter two as written? 

 

There is no odd sentence structure or words in it.

 

your reading comprehension must be very low then when you read the NASB it is college level reading while the AV is sixth grade level.

 

I cannot read and understand that AV passage without having to do a double-take on what I perceive as 'odd' sentence structures (to use your word) and moreover having to look up certain words in a dictionary. So if that's what you mean by not being able to understand 'as written' (and it's certainly what I meant when I said 'as it stands'), then the answer is yes.

 

As to you second statement, if that's true then I guess it means that, as you claim, I must have a very poor grasp of basic written English. If you're genuinely interested--and I strongly suspect you aren't--I don't mind explaining exactly which bits of that passage I struggled to understand on first scan.

 

As to your tepid accusation in post #46 that I either lied about having read the passage or was being deceitful: whichever one you actually want to go with, you are wrong.

Edited by Alimantado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Paraphrase: Is that what God says: along with what man says; that God meant to say??

A paraphrase is restating something using other words.  I don't think it's inappropriate on a forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I cannot read and understand that AV passage without having to do a double-take on what I perceive as 'odd' sentence structures (to use your word) and moreover having to look up certain words in a dictionary. So if that's what you mean by not being able to understand 'as written' (and it's certainly what I meant when I said 'as it stands'), then the answer is yes.

 

As to you second statement, if that's true then I guess it means that, as you claim, I must have a very poor grasp of basic written English. If you're genuinely interested--and I strongly suspect you aren't--I don't mind explaining exactly which bits of that passage I struggled to understand on first scan.

 

As to your tepid accusation in post #46 that I either lied about having read the passage or was being deceitful: whichever one you actually want to go with, you are wrong.

 Brother Al, please do, help me to understand where you are having trouble and why?  this will help me in turn help others better understand the the Holy Bible.

 

Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

 

There are no thees and thous, Ye means you, honour has the older spelling but it is still understandable as read, and rudiments that would be the most difficult word in these four passages.  There is absolutely no sentence construction (sentence structures) here that would hinder understanding.  If you have to look up words for their meaning nothing wrong with that as it helps you to learn more words than you previously did not know which in the long run helps you to be a better communicator.   But You don't need a dictionary to get the meaning you can look up the uses in the AV and generally you will be able to get an idea of what it means.  I like that best but not all words are listed more than once that is when I go to a dictionary and discover that even newer meanings as of late actually apply quite well to the application of scriptures today.

 

Even I have to apply effort to a reading on the "first scan".  That is why I will re-read a scripture more than once.  And after 20 years of reading the Bible (NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, LT, GN and 11 years with an AV) I am quite familiar with it. I read my Bible through OT once a year (sometimes having to re-read to understand) and my NT three times a year.  Also I read specific parts in studying for preparing messages and that is where I can get deeper into it.  If I can't understand it in English I will never understand it in Greek or Hebrew.  I encourage people to master the English.

 

So yes I am at a loss at a person who would know what tepid (an old English word) means and how to use it, who would say they could not understand these four passages of scripture as they are written.  And as far as my statement did I truly call you a liar or say you lied? Or maybe you didn't understand the words I used?

 

 

And My statement was not unkind he either didn't read the text or was being disingenuous in his statements. It is one of the easiest chapters to read and understand.  some of the hardest words would have been beholding, steadfastness, and rudiments and if anyone reading this post would say these are hard to understand or read is a not being truthful.

 

As to your tepid accusation in post #46 that I either lied about having read the passage or was being deceitful

   First I never called you a liar or said you lied, If I wanted that understanding then I would say it outright.  If you think that disingenuous means only lied or lying, you need to look it up. 

 

 

Disingenuous /Dis`in·gen u·ous/ a.

1. Not noble; unbecoming true honor or dignity; mean; unworthy;

2. Not ingenuous; wanting in noble candor or frankness; not frank or open; uncandid; unworthily or meanly artful.

3. not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

 

#3 is was more along the lines of what I was pointing at, and that only because I am not present with you to verify. And after corresponding with you via these threads it really does seem you know more than you are letting on about and that is disingenuous.

Edited by AVBibleBeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In other words, Christ has set us free from following the world's ideas of how to be saved by doing good and following various rules.  If we're set free, why do we keep following the the world's rules?  The rules seem good but they make people proud.  Of course, this is being referred to Judaism but we can still apply this principle today since Christians don't practice Judaism.  Rigid enforcing of personal convictions as requirements even where the Bible is silent.  Enforcing personal standards as a universal practice for all Christians.  Legalism comes in when man tries to capture freedoms we have in Christ and subject it to the will of man.

Jeffrey likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 Brother Al, please do, help me to understand where you are having trouble and why?  this will help me in turn help others better understand the the Holy Bible.

 

Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

 

There are no thees and thous, Ye means you, honour has the older spelling but it is still understandable as read, and rudiments that would be the most difficult word in these four passages.  There is absolutely no sentence construction (sentence structures) here that would hinder understanding.  If you have to look up words for their meaning nothing wrong with that as it helps you to learn more words than you previously did not know which in the long run helps you to be a better communicator.   But You don't need a dictionary to get the meaning you can look up the uses in the AV and generally you will be able to get an idea of what it means.  I like that best but not all words are listed more than once that is when I go to a dictionary and discover that even newer meanings as of late actually apply quite well to the application of scriptures today.

 

Even I have to apply effort to a reading on the "first scan".  That is why I will re-read a scripture more than once.  And after 20 years of reading the Bible (NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, LT, GN and 11 years with an AV) I am quite familiar with it. I read my Bible through OT once a year (sometimes having to re-read to understand) and my NT three times a year.  Also I read specific parts in studying for preparing messages and that is where I can get deeper into it.  If I can't understand it in English I will never understand it in Greek or Hebrew.  I encourage people to master the English.

 

So yes I am at a loss at a person who would know what tepid (an old English word) means and how to use it, who would say they could not understand these four passages of scripture as they are written.  And as far as my statement did I truly call you a liar or say you lied? Or maybe you didn't understand the words I used?

 

   First I never called you a liar or said you lied, If I wanted that understanding then I would say it outright.  If you think that disingenuous means only lied or lying, you need to look it up. 

 

 

Disingenuous /Dis`in·gen u·ous/ a.

1. Not noble; unbecoming true honor or dignity; mean; unworthy;

2. Not ingenuous; wanting in noble candor or frankness; not frank or open; uncandid; unworthily or meanly artful.

3. not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

 

#3 is was more along the lines of what I was pointing at, and that only because I am not present with you to verify. And after corresponding with you via these threads it really does seem you know more than you are letting on about and that is disingenuous.

 

Hi AVBB

 

You indirectly called me a liar rather than directly, and even then you included it as one option in an either/or statement (the other option being 'disingenuous', which is an accusation of deceit in this context). Hence I called your accusation 'tepid'. What you said was that if I wasn't being disingenuous then I must have not actually read the passage. But of course in my original post to you, I did claim to have read the passage, so saying that maybe I actually didn't is tantamount to suggesting I lied. So there you go: lie (didn't actually read it when I claimed to) or deceit (in this case, being disingenuous) were and still are your options for me.

 

Anyway, I'm quite happy to share with you, step by step, the process I went through when reading that passage and the problems I encountered, and if you find the explanation instructive then that's great. I can't do this right now though because I'm busy with something else, so if it's ok with you I'll do a separate post tomorrow.

 

God bless

 

Carl

candlelight likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In other words, Christ has set us free from following the world's ideas of how to be saved by doing good and following various rules.  If we're set free, why do we keep following the the world's rules?  The rules seem good but they make people proud.  Of course, this is being referred to Judaism but we can still apply this principle today since Christians don't practice Judaism.  Rigid enforcing of personal convictions as requirements even where the Bible is silent.  Enforcing personal standards as a universal practice for all Christians.  Legalism comes in when man tries to capture freedoms we have in Christ and subject it to the will of man.

exactly!!

 

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;

22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I look forward to your explanation brother Carl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

That's not the old spelling of honor -- it's the British spelling still in use

 

Oh I stand corrected.  Then it is still a modern word with little room for misunderstanding.

 

OFP, do you have any problems understanding or reading Collosians Chapter 2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I have pointed out at other times that everyone has standards - standards themselves are not wrong.

It is what you attach them to. ..

For instance, a man can not walk into a McDonald's store without a shirt on here.
They have a standard that you must meet if you want to eat there.
You can choose to keep your shirt off and not eat there, or you can voluntarily submit to their standard and gain the benefits (?) Of eating there.

My old work had a dress Standard - I could choose not to dress to their standard but I would also lose the benefits that came with working there.

So why is it a crime for a church to have standards?

In fact, EVERY CHURCH HAS STANDARDS.
The argument is not in fact standards per se, but rather the positioning of those standards.

The example I have given before is to ask what reaction your church would have to someone coming to your church wearing a bikini, or maybe even nude?

I doubt very much that a regular attender would be accepted if they came in severely under dressed.
The point is that, the issue is NOT standards, but the different ideas of acceptable standards.

Standards themselves are not legalism.

Edited by DaveW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Exactly, Dave.  Even people who don't want standards, who claim that having standards is legalism, have standards...and people who don't agree with those standards get labeled...

 

The Bible does lay out dos and don'ts.  That's what so many who want to do away with standards of behavior seem to forget.

 

AVB -just so you know, before Carl does post again, he is a new Christian, coming from a background of atheism.  Let's try for a more compassionate approach, shall we?  Thank you.

candlelight likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Exactly, Dave.  Even people who don't want standards, who claim that having standards is legalism, have standards...and people who don't agree with those standards get labeled...

 

The Bible does lay out dos and don'ts.  That's what so many who want to do away with standards of behavior seem to forget.

 

AVB -just so you know, before Carl does post again, he is a new Christian, coming from a background of atheism.  Let's try for a more compassionate approach, shall we?  Thank you.

 

I did not know Carl was a new believer.  I apologize then as I was expecting more understanding from him as I assumed (my fault for doing so) that he was a seasoned believer.

candlelight likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I did not know Carl was a new believer.  I apologize then as I was expecting more understanding from him as I assumed (my fault for doing so) that he was a seasoned believer.

I thought as much, which is why I mentioned it. Just be aware that we are all at different stages of our spiritual growth here, and we do best not to assume too much about anyone.  :wink

candlelight likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I have pointed out at other times that everyone has standards - standards themselves are not wrong.
It is what you attach them to. ..
For instance, a man can not walk into a McDonald's store without a shirt on here.
They have a standard that you must meet if you want to eat there.
You can choose to keep your shirt off and not eat there, or you can voluntarily submit to their standard and gain the benefits (?) Of eating there.
My old work had a dress Standard - I could choose not to dress to their standard but I would also lose the benefits that came with working there.
So why is it a crime for a church to have standards?
In fact, EVERY CHURCH HAS STANDARDS.
The argument is not in fact standards per se, but rather the positioning of those standards.
The example I have given before is to ask what reaction your church would have to someone coming to your church wearing a bikini, or maybe even nude?
I doubt very much that a regular attender would be accepted if they came in severely under dressed.
The point is that, the issue is NOT standards, but the different ideas of acceptable standards.
Standards themselves are not legalism.


Your restraunt comparison doesn't hold up, a place of business and a church have two different atmospheres, ones a business the other is a house of worship. And as I told you before, your naked comparison is a false dichotomy, the nude individual would be breaking the law.when you attach godliness and holiness to a set of expected behaviors which are above and not found in Scripture, you have legalism:
Legalism; no dancing
Legalism; dress codes, all dress must be 4" below the knee
Legalism; don't go into a bar, even if it's for their restraunt,
Legalism; don't go into a place or event that serves alcohol, never mind the fact that our God provided wine at a wedding
Legalism, don't go to the movies
You get the point, you will not find laws against these activities in Scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So your church allows members to dress in ANY WAY THEY LIKE for any church activity?
Or act however they like whenever they like in a church service?

I very much doubt it - you have standards, you just don't like other people's standards.
Standards themselves are not legalism.

candlelight likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now