It seems to be that legalism is only wrong if we see rigidly following the law as a way to justify ourselves before God. It's impossible for us to achieve that, and therefore legalism is wrong.

But following God's commandments is not wrong. For one thing, I haven't yet found a commandment which is morally wrong. Let's start with the ten commandments: leaving aside legalism, which of those commandments could I break and still be morally right? The commandments are the foundation of our morality; they were provided by God as a guide so that we might know morally correct behavior. It's like asking whether I'm legalistic because I don't steal my neighbour's car, or because I stop at red lights.

Even if we take things to the extreme and say that the law has no further relevance to us, the point remains, as it was made by Paul two thousand years ago: all things may be permitted, but not all things are beneficial.

[It's a plain and simple fact that Christians have always been in a war with the devil for the entire history of humanity. The opposite is true for those who aren't Christians. It doesn't get any more simple than that, so I'm off to do more important things.]

Servant,

WOW! - So what are you arguing about from your first post in this thread? I won't be arguing with you on this issue any more. If you agree that Christians are in a war with the devil for their families, just say AMEN and be done with it. Regardless, I won't waste any more of my time with this. It's a plain and simple fact that Christians have always been in a war with the devil for the entire history of humanity. The opposite is true for those who aren't Christians. It doesn't get any more simple than that, so I'm off to do more important things.

Tom

Tom: Please see an edit to my earlier post where I provide my interpretation of Biblical verses, which you asked for.

If that is all for our debate, then let there be peace between us, brother.

Your quote is there completely, so there's nothing to misrepresent

That's what I thought, too, but now you're telling me that I'm against Biblical actions by Christians, and I have no idea where you're getting that from. I certainly never meant to say that I think Christians should not act as the Bible instructs them to.

I'm not sure which point I'm supposed to present Bible verses on precisely, so I'll select four that seem to fit my original argument and go from there.

The first two involve the quotes you claim that I am misrepresenting in a non-Christian manner. Jesus appears to suggest, in the Bible, that following Him means leaving our earthly ties behind, including our families:

"Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel's sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life." (Mark 10)

This doesn't mean he's anti-family values, I should think, and I didn't mean to say that he was. But it does mean that family doesn't appear to be a high priority for him -- if protecting the "Christian family" was integral to him, I'm not sure why he would commend those who leave their family behind. Again, does this mean he's opposed to families? No - and neither am I. I'm just suggesting that family doesn't appear to be a central concern in the Christian message.

Indeed, Jesus goes on at another passage which seems to imply that families are a stumbling block to our faith, or can be in certain cases (presumably where families are divided along lines of belief and unbelief):

"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." (Luke 12)

Again, does this mean He's anti-family? No, but He seems to be saying that our faith is going to cause divisions within our families, and that where such divisions occur, our responsibility is to the Lord. Again, this suggests that family is not central to Christianity - though that does not mean it is unimportant, as the record of the early church as well as the Old Testament makes clear. It just means that I'm not clear why family would be one of the crusades we need to embark on in our witnessing -- after all, our Savior tells us we must be prepared to split them apart and/or lay them aside, so we seem a little misguided in then telling the world that family is the bedrock upon which other important things are founded.

As for my reference to making disciples, while I'm sure we obviously do disagree about how bet to do this, the command from Christ in our dealings with the world comes from the final words of the gospel of Matthew: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Clearly we disagree on how best this mission ought to be carried out.

Finally, since we're talking about the homosexual agenda, I'd bring up Ephesians 6: "For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens." Now, you claim that our war is with Satan, which is cool, because that's what Paul seems to be saying as well, and that's something I'm ready to agree with. But the original article doesn't seem to have been saying that: it's target was, for the most part, homosexuals and their advocacy groups, who are very much flesh and blood.

And you are wrong, we are in a war, with satan.

I hope that if we re-read my post, we will find that I did not deny that we are in a war against Satan.

You would have to discard a great portion of the Bible to say that sexual immorality and the devil's attempt to snare our children is no concern of a Christian.

[/quote]
Fortunately, I never actually said that sexual immortality was of no concern to a Christian.

The next time you're going to misrepresent my statements, I'd appreciate it if you at least did not attempt to cast aspersions on the reality of my faith at the same time.

Before you speak such you need to do a much better research of what the ACLU is actually doing.

 

Perhaps you could be more specific about where I am being ignorant. Some basic research on the ACLU's electronic resources alone will reveal, for example, that they HAVE in fact defended Christians, including Christians' right to expression of their belief in public.

I don't believe they have an anti-Christian agenda because I think they're too amorally blind to have one, not because I think they're cute and friendly. Their defence of NAMBLA fits into this, actually. They have an extremely narrow interpretation of the law, and they attempt to push that agenda. The fact that they are so often successful suggests that the ACLU is only a symptom of a greater problem, though. I'm not sure where hte ACLU is on record attempting to change a law so that pedophiles have a right to exploit children, but I hope you can enlighten me. (This might be a better topic for a new thread or a private message, though; it wasn't my intention to drag the topic in that direction.)

Not the ACLU. They jump on the wagon and start handing out little pamphlets advising the kids of their rights and what to do if they are arrested or disciplined. I wonder if anyone at the ACLU once thought “If these kids stay in school we wouldn’t have to be telling them what to do if they get arrested or disciplined.”

The ACLU's actions here are a prime example of legalism gone wrong. Law and justice aren't really the same thing, and the ACLU is a classic example of that in their focus on following a narrow interpretation of the written law rather than questioning what is right and wrong. But the fact is, that's their purpose, and informing people what their legal rights are is a hard thing to condemn, especially living as we do in a civil or democratic society where such rights actually exist.

Having said that, the ACLU has also defended Christians' civil rights for the practise and expression of their religion, so it might be a bit harsh to leap on the ACLU as having an anti-Christian agenda as such. Their problem is that they are focused on what is permissible according to the law, rather than what is right according to morality.

Even if what you were saying was completely true it is much bigger than just the globalist. Satan is at work right now in the world. Satan wants America to fail because he cannot overcome Israel as long as the U.S. is still strong. This is going to happen eventually because God says that it will.

Agreed - with a couple of points.

First, I don't really believe that Israel needs the U.S. to protect them. American power may be God's instrument in that part for now, but if America were cast down, and God still wanted to protect Israel (which I would think that He does!), I am confident that He would raise up some other force in place. Does that mean an American collapse is a good thing? Hardly! -- there are 300 million people near here whose lives count for something, and the number goes up if you count America's close allies.

Second, I'm not sure Satan really wants the U.S. to "fall," either. Satan is in the conversion game as much as we are -- though he aims to convert people to evil, not to the grace of God. I think he'd much rather have a United States which did his will. And while the Bush government remains apparently Christian, at least in many of its people if not entirely, there are lots of American tools which Satan appears to be using to great effect. Abortion, homosexuality, even financial troubles, are not going to bring down America - but they might turn America into something none of us want it to be.

The Christian family is currently under assault from many quarters, one of the most menacing being the challenge to traditional sexual morality. In an effort to provide some context for understanding sexual deviancy, this essay will briefly address the familial origins and pathology of such deviance, the social "normalization" agenda of homosexual practitioners, the conflict this agenda has created within the Christian Church, and an appropriate Christian response.

I think you bring up some really interesting problems with the current wave of sexual immorality that pervades our society, but I think we might be letting ourselves by sidetracked by claiming that it is the "Christian family" that is under attack. Jesus doesn't really seem to have placed a lot of impetus on maintaining a traditional family - indeed, in some places he actually calls us to "forsake" our family for His sake (Matthew 19), says that His coming will break families apart (Matthew 10), and even that we must "hate" our father, mother and siblings in order to be his disciple (Luke 14). It's possible that "hate" is hyperbole -- after all, I'm pretty sure we aren't literally commanded to cut off our hands or gouge out our eyes, either; he said that to make a point -- but the general trend seems clear.

Being concerned about the state of the family is fine, for many of the reasons you mention. In fact, if we're at all concerned about the future lives of human beings, we must be concerned about how they are raised, and that means being concerned about family. But our call as Christians is to make disciples, not to crusade on behalf of the family. We need to remember not to lose sight of that fact. That is not our war.

why is there an empty cross without Jesus shown as being criucified on it in your church?  If scripture says on numerous occassions that we preach Christ crucified, then why would you not have him on the cross?

Uh... why does it matter?

Putting Jesus on the cross -- which, incidentally, is NOT enough to give away what church someone belongs to, since it's present in more than one denomination - draws attention to the sacrifice of Jesus. Like you say, "Christ crucified."

But the cross is not "preaching" Christ crucified - it is a symbol. And I think it would be a great stretch to say that the fact that Jesus is no longer on the cross means that people in such churches don't believe Christ was never on a cross, ever. The empty cross, whether or not you agree with the symbolism involved, emphasizes that Christ is no longer on the cross: that is, he is no longer dead. But an empty cross doesn't really signify that Christ is at the right hand of God, just that he is not on the cross, so the symbol of an empty cross isn't exactly perfect, either. The point is, it's a symbol. If you want to know what a church believes about the death and resurrection of Christ, look to their statement of faith and to the people themselves.

I think an important thing to keep in mind is that the cross, regardless of whether or not Jesus is portrayed on it, is a SYMBOL. It is no more right to suggest that most Protestant denominations dishonor Christ's sacrifice with an empty cross than it is to say that the Roman Catholic church denies the resurrection by placing Christ upon the cross symbol. Whether or not you have theological problems beyond that point is fair game -- I certainly have problems with Catholicism -- but the symbolism involved shouldn't really by the issue here, I think.

Sometimes  the truth stings but it is still the truth

Unfortunately, Chick tracts are not always the truth. Which is where MY grievance lies.

[Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.]

God is the author of the scriptures, He is also the organizer of them. It is not an accident that that admonition falls at the end of the Scriptures .

God is immutable, He does not change or contradict himself

I certainly never meant that he did. But that Revelation 22 admonition says:

"I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book."

In the KJV, if you prefer that translation for accuracy's sake, it says:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."

Which is more verbose but has a comparable meaning. The warning in Revelation specifically pertains to the words of the book of Revelation.

Deu 4:2   Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deu 12:32   What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Pro 30:6   Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

The early church certainly did add to the words given by God, though I have faith that their additions were also given by God. The problem is, the verses in question aren't going to be used very convincingly against people who believe that THEIR more recent additions are ALSO given by God, because the existence of the New Testament is proof that God's revelation of His word did not end at the time of the writing of Deuteronomy or Proverbs. We receive the New Testament as canon by faith, but I'm still lacking where it says, within the text, that the canon is now closed.

Jesus offers this warning

Mat 15:9   But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.

A very good warning, in my mind, though an uncomfortable amount of modern theology seems to be the "commandments of men," and not just within the Catholic or Mormon churches either.

Chick tracks are very direct, and sometime a bit harsh. But you can not present the gospel to people unless you get their attention first. I prefer to "judge" them one at a time rather than a general condemnation .

Some Chick tracts go beyond being harsh, though. On some topics, including Halloween, the Roman Catholic Church, and evolution to name three, he repeatedly refers to complete untruths, such as the claim that the "IHS" on Catholic communion wafers refers to Isus, Horub, and Sheb, or that the Catholic church runs a global conspiracy which gave rise to Islam and the New Age movement.

I think tracts are fine as witnessing tools, as long as we're careful about what we're handing out. Not only is it important to speak the truth in all witnessing, but it is even more important, I think, to ensure that what is given out in a tract is what we want said, because unlike in an actual conversation (which I would favour in most cases where it is possible), you cannot check back and correct someone's misinterpretation of what they've been told.

You need to compare there book to the Holy Scritptures, besides the obviouse fact that they have added to the Holy Scritptures (and we are told NOT to is a good hint that they are off.

I'm very hesitant to suggest that adding to the Scriptures is a good idea at this point - for one thing, the Book of Mormon contains obvious contradictions and theological untruths. But I'm not sure where the warning about adding to Scriptures is. The early church obviously added a great deal to the scriptures. If the text applied for this principle is Revelation 22, then it's worth noting that that verse about adding and taking away seems to be referring to Revelation as such, rather than the Bible as such.

If there is another verse, though, I would be very grateful to know it. I could definitely use it in certain conversations. 

For easy reference, that passage in my above post is from Ezekiel 33. Sorry for not mentioning that.

Evangelism does often seem hopeless. Speaking from personal experience, the burden needed, in prayer and action, to bring a single one of the lost to a saving knowledge of God can take years.

The fact that evangelism is difficult does not provide us with an excuse, however. Neither does the dross in the present-day church. No church was perfect; if you take a hard look at the church of Acts and of Biblical times, you will find that even though many were filled with the Spirit more than it sometimes seems today, there were still very divisive issues, including things as apparently simple (to us) as the salvation of Gentiles. Regardless of anyone's imperfections, be they ours, be they the church's, or be they those of the people we witness to, evangelism is our responsibility and our duty as Christians.

Observe these words spoken by God to the prophet Ezekiel:

"Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them,

When I bring a sword upon the land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: If when he sees the sword come upon the land, he blows the trumpet, and warns the people; then whoever hears the sound of the trumpet, and takes no warning, and the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took no warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that takes warning shall deliver his soul.

But if the watchman sees the sword coming, and blows not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword comes, and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand" (2-6).

There are, in essence, three possibile outcomes of our choices regarding evangelism. If we picture ourselves as the guard, we can see these three possibilities:

1.) If we warn the people, we fulfill our duty. They listen, and are saved.

2.) If we warn the people, we fulfill our duty. Nonetheless, they do not listen, and by their own fault are they saved.

3.) If we do not warn the people, they cannot know to be saved. Their blood is on our hands.

Evangelism is very difficult, and always has been. People do not confess before the Lord easily. But this should give us pause: If we simply do not bother even trying to share our knowledge of the Lord, then it is us whom he questions regarding their lack of faith, as well as they themselves.