Re: [TruthTalk] Legalism

[Judy Taylor]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 14:56:05 -0500 "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hey, hey. I can't let this go by. First, Lance listens way more than he talks at the bookstore.   jt: How can you tell he is listening Debbie - he may e going through old Cheech and Chong or Monty Python movies while the other person talks.   Second, when he does talk it is never as a guru; discerning examination is exactly what he advocates, and he respects diversity more than most people I know.    jt: Being open minded is not the same as being spiritually discerning. If Lance exercises the latter he has certainly never evidenced it on TT.  He mainly makes pronouncements about what is right, what is wrong, etc. - always his opinion.   Yes, most Christian bookstores are dangerous for those lacking discernment, because most of them have no Lancelike character there encouraging people to be alert and making sure that a spectrum of views is represented.  Lance is one of the few people in the world with whom I don't feel compelled to agree in order to be respected and taken seriously. He often talks positively about the TTers he disagrees with. I think maybe he doesn't come through that well in his posts. You don't get to see his eyes.   jt: I am sure you have made Lance's day today Debbie.  judyt   Debbie From: Judy Taylor   Who is them?  Nothing like part of a story, or partial truth to lead astray. Are they poor unsuspecting souls who frequent your bookstore?  I've heard it said that Christian Bookstores are one of the most dangerous places around for those lacking spiritual discernment - and I am seeing the truth of this statement in real life.  jt       On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 13:12:28 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > When I wish to illustrate legalism, I show them posts like this.   > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   > > *Note Subject Change > > was "Eternal Judgment" and now is "Legalism" > > > > John defined legalism as: > > > It is the imposition of their interpretations upon others > > > and the elevation of their understanding to the status > > > of Ex-Cathedra. > > > > This is pretty much how I see you coming across all the time, > John. > > However, the rest of what you described applies very little to me, > you, or > > almost anybody else I know.  There have been a few over the years, > but I > > don't tend to hang around people like that too long. > > > > I use the term legalism in the way that the dictionary defines it, > which > is > > adherence to the letter of law, or a literal interpretation and > adherence > to > > some law, rule, or religious code.  You guys have a certain > theological > > system passed on to you from guys like Torrance and Wright, and > you are > very > > strict not to depart from it.  It is actually your new found > legalism that > > makes it difficult interacting with those who are legalistic in > regards to > > the standards of Scripture.  Like Bill said, however, most > legalists do > not > > realize that they are legalists.  We are creatures of habit and > tradition, > > and this is what makes us all tend to be legalistic in some way. > > > > I keep in mind that passage that says that the letter of the law > kills but > > the spirit gives life.  This tempers my tendency to be legalistic. >  I > think > > the absence of legalism would be sin, but I also think over > emphasizing > the > > letter can be a sin as well.  Remember that Jesus encouraged his > disciples > > to listen and learn from the legalists of his day, but he warned > them of > > their hypocrisy.  He wanted us to do what the legalists said to > do, but > not > > to follow their example of living. > > > > Too many times in this culture we hear warnings against legalism.  > This is > > kind of like the hippy cry of the 1960's for freedom and liberty > and free > > love.  Too often the battle cry against legalism is a > justification for > > anti-authoritarianism and anti-Biblical adherence.  How about we > talk > about > > this word legalism some more and see if we can decide if it is > really all > > that bad after all. > > > > As a starter for discussion, if legalism were carte blanche evil, > then > > shouldn't we just get rid of all laws?  It seems to me that > without laws > and > > rules, then it would be very difficult for anyone to be > legalistic.  What > do > > you think? > > > > Peace be with you. > > David Miller. > > > > > > ---------- > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that > you may > know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email > to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you > have a > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you > may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you > have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > >