is your father legalistic when he tells u eat ur vegies? or don't lay on the train tracks?

[follower]

or drink 6 glasses of pure water daily ?
or don't stick a butter knife in an outlet ?
or don't walk naked down the middle of main street ?
or don't trip a blind man ?
or don't trust a con man ?
or don't do give urself an std ?
or don't eat metal splinters and don't eat contaminated bacterial moldy germy cereal ?
or don't set off fire crackers between your toes ?


so then, when Yhwh gives simple, non-burdensome instructions for life, (life on earth and eternal life),
is He being legalistic ? if so, is He wrong ?

 

[Gary]

or don't do give urself an std ?

 

[Willie T]

I'm pretty sure you won't find even one post that says God is legalistic.
But you WILL find plenty of accurate posts that show where people trying to impress rules upon people ARE being legalistic.

 

[tim-from-pa]

or drink 6 glasses of pure water daily ?
or don't stick a butter knife in an outlet ?
or don't walk naked down the middle of main street ?
or don't trip a blind man ?
or don't trust a con man ?
or don't do give urself an std ?
or don't eat metal splinters and don't eat contaminated bacterial moldy germy cereal ?
or don't set off fire crackers between your toes ?


so then, when Yhwh gives simple, non-burdensome instructions for life, (life on earth and eternal life),
is He being legalistic ? if so, is He wrong ?

I concur. And the 10 commandments, including the Sabbaths, are in full force today. For those who say we are not under the Law, the issue is that we no longer take the penalty for sin, Christ did. As Paul stated, the Law was not for those who abide by the Law, but for transgressors. It shows the latter how they fell short, which of course is really all of us. So since we are under grace, people confuse that to mean that the standards of the Law are no longer in effect --- they are. Paul said that the Law was spiritual, but we are carnal. Rather, by the Spirit, we emulate the Law because that's our new nature, summed in love of both God and man, for I don't know anyone who claims to love God want to have other gods before him, or someone who loves their neighbor commit adultery with his wife.

I always used a cat analogy, I guess because I have a few. Before Christ, the Law said if we were cats we would scratch like a cat, meow like a cat, catch a bird like a cat. So here we are believing that if we do those behaviors that it would make us into something we are not. So people would scratch like a cat, meow like a cat, catch a bird like a cat and then say they are cats. But Paul pointed out differently. However, with a changed nature, we now are a new creation and actually become cats. So since we are now cats we scratch like a cat, meow like a cat, catch a bird like a cat. The Law of being a cat is now in our nature (hearts) but just because we were changed does not mean the definition of a cat has. In reality we have some of the old nature yet, but the flesh man must die so that we become a new creature at the resurrection. Right now we have a deposit of God's Spirit in us by faith that hedges us that way, but only begotten at this time until the old is totally taken out of the way.

 

[Willie T]

I concur. And the 10 commandments, including the Sabbaths, are in full force today. For those who say we are not under the Law, the issue is that we no longer take the penalty for sin, Christ did. As Paul stated, the Law was not for those who abide by the Law, but for transgressors. It shows the latter how they fell short, which of course is really all of us. So since we are under grace, people confuse that to mean that the standards of the Law are no longer in effect --- they are. Paul said that the Law was spiritual, but we are carnal. Rather, by the Spirit, we emulate the Law because that's our new nature, summed in love of both God and man, for I don't know anyone who claims to love God want to have other gods before him, or someone who loves their neighbor commit adultery with his wife.

I always used a cat analogy, I guess because I have a few. Before Christ, the Law said if we were cats we would scratch like a cat, meow like a cat, catch a bird like a cat. So here we are believing that if we do those behaviors that it would make us into something we are not. So people would scratch like a cat, meow like a cat, catch a bird like a cat and then say they are cats. But Paul pointed out differently. However, with a changed nature, we now are a new creation and actually become cats. So since we are now cats we scratch like a cat, meow like a cat, catch a bird like a cat. The Law of being a cat is now in our nature (hearts) but just because we were changed does not mean the definition of a cat has. In reality we have some of the old nature yet, but the flesh man must die so that we become a new creature at the resurrection. Right now we have a deposit of God's Spirit in us by faith that hedges us that way, but only begotten at this time until the old is totally taken out of the way.

One of the questions I always ask Legalists is... are you selectively picking your "laws" to follow? If not, then why haven't any of you stoned your sons for getting smart-mouthed.... or any of the many other "laws" you, yourselves, choose to disregard?

See? All you are really doing is just creating the same old atmosphere of self-righteous religion that Jesus constantly spoke against.

 

[tim-from-pa]

One of the questions I always ask Legalists is... are you selectively picking your "laws" to follow? If not, then why haven't any of you stoned your sons for getting smart-mouthed.... or any of the many other "laws" you, yourselves, choose to disregard?

See? All you are really doing is just creating the same old atmosphere of self-righteous religion that Jesus constantly spoke against.

True, but then that becomes and excuse not to keep any. Also, one should know the difference between ceremonies of the Law which foreshadowed Christ as opposed to behavioral standards for the good of man and God. And again, if I have to struggle to try to keep any, then it's not of the Spirit but of the flesh. I'm saying that if one has the Spirit, one will have the innate tendency to follow the Law's mandates and guidance. Bottom line, don't worry about consciously forcing yourself to follow any laws. That will come naturally. For example, the more I learned from the bible, the more I felt uncomfortable with working on the Sabbath -- I wanted to redirect my attention to God on that day. It's not that I "had to", it's more that I "wanted to" and to not observe it was as uncomfortable to me as a Spirit-filled preacher visiting a strip joint. Now we can debate all day what observe means, and I'm not going to decide on the semantics here. Do I keep it perfectly? No, but that's no reason not to quit working on that day, either. Rather, my action was an act of faith demonstrating to the world that I acknowledge that God had his day, his calendar, and his purpose outlined in mankind in that calendar, any liturgy aside. I was not going to waste one more day in a job I dislike like it was a common day like any other day in place of the Lord. So yeah, I pulled the religious card and won.

 

[follower]

how many times did Yhwh's sent ones tell others to turn to Yhwh and to keep His commandments/ to do what Yhwh says ?

when Yhwh sent someone to tell others to turn to Yhwh and to keep His commandments
was Yhwh or the ones He sent being legalistic ?

 

[Willie T]

True, but then that becomes and excuse not to keep any. Also, one should know the difference between ceremonies of the Law which foreshadowed Christ as opposed to behavioral standards for the good of man and God. And again, if I have to struggle to try to keep any, then it's not of the Spirit but of the flesh. I'm saying that if one has the Spirit, one will have the innate tendency to follow the Law's mandates and guidance. Bottom line, don't worry about consciously forcing yourself to follow any laws. That will come naturally. For example, the more I learned from the bible, the more I felt uncomfortable with working on the Sabbath -- I wanted to redirect my attention to God on that day. It's not that I "had to", it's more that I "wanted to" and to not observe it was as uncomfortable to me as a Spirit-filled preacher visiting a strip joint. Now we can debate all day what observe means, and I'm not going to decide on the semantics here. Do I keep it perfectly? No, but that's no reason not to quit working on that day, either. Rather, my action was an act of faith demonstrating to the world that I acknowledge that God had his day, his calendar, and his purpose outlined in mankind in that calendar, any liturgy aside. I was not going to waste one more day in a job I dislike like it was a common day like any other day in place of the Lord. So yeah, I pulled the religious card and won.

I like the way you replied... as God instructed us to....... by looking at, and talking about, how YOU felt, and how YOU chose to handle it. But, many people can't see it that way. They seem to feel a need to be sure others live the same as they do.

 

[Willie T]

how many times did Yhwh's sent ones tell others to turn to Yhwh and to keep His commandments/ to do what Yhwh says ?

when Yhwh sent someone to tell others to turn to Yhwh and to keep His commandments
was Yhwh or the ones He sent being legalistic ?

Until someone hands me a letter that God wrote, showing me that the person trying to tell me what I have to do was hired by Him...... it's, "Keep on walkin', Bro."

 

[follower]

Until someone hands me a letter that God wrote, showing me that the person trying to tell me what I have to do was hired by Him...... it's, "Keep on walkin', Bro."

you quoted two questions, then said, if i may paraphrase, that so far you're not doing what Yhwh wants you to do, without answering either question. if i may not paraphrase or got it wrong, then just ignore this part.

next. is there an answer to either question ?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Let's keep it simple.

Galatians 3:24; NIV
So then, the Law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

God gave us rules, we could not keep them, he provided a way out.
Simple?

No legalism by God, only grace.

 

[Willie T]

Well, I tried my best not to put it this bluntly.......

Despite what you may feel, I'm pretty sure God didn't send you to "tell others to turn to Yhwh and to keep His commandments/ to do what Yhwh says."

His commandment was to go Preach the good news of the kingdom.

 

[follower]

Let's keep it simple.

Galatians 3:24; NIV
So then, the Law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

God gave us rules, we could not keep them, he provided a way out.
Simple?

No legalism by God, only grace.

sorry. read some more of Galatians, and Psalms, and Revelation, and Yeshua's Own Words. take your time, there's a lot to read.
He did in a Way provide a Way out, in Yeshua. a new heart and a new mind and a new spirit.
you won't ever find Him saying to disobey though, even to people who could not keep them before.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

sorry. read some more of Galatians, and Psalms, and Revelation, and Yeshua's Own Words. take your time, there's a lot to read.
He did in a Way provide a Way out, in Yeshua. a new heart and a new mind and a new spirit.
you won't ever find Him saying to disobey though, even to people who could not keep them before.

I never said anything about disobeying.
Why are you reading into something I never said?

 

[follower]

I never said anything about disobeying.
Why are you reading into something I never said?

it's a test for clarification, not reading something into it. if you're obeying, you're not disobeying. if you're disobeying, you're not obeying. is that correctly what you mean ?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

it's a test for clarification, not reading something into it. if you're obeying, you're not disobeying. if you're disobeying, you're not obeying. is that correctly what you mean ?

Your OP question was, "Is God legalistic?".
My answer was he is not.

 

[follower]

so then, when Yhwh gives simple, non-burdensome instructions for life, (life on earth and eternal life),
is He being legalistic ? if so, is He wrong ?

again, clarifying - there's the op. your answer is that Yhwh is not legalistic ? (and no, not concerned with any picky variations of the definition of the word legalistic. define 'legalistic' if you want to or if it helps.)

 

[Kathi]

or drink 6 glasses of pure water daily ?
or don't stick a butter knife in an outlet ?
or don't walk naked down the middle of main street ?
or don't trip a blind man ?
or don't trust a con man ?
or don't do give urself an std ?
or don't eat metal splinters and don't eat contaminated bacterial moldy germy cereal ?
or don't set off fire crackers between your toes ?


so then, when Yhwh gives simple, non-burdensome instructions for life, (life on earth and eternal life),
is He being legalistic ? if so, is He wrong ?

This has nothing to do with legalistic.It is just wise advise.

 

[Eugene]

As concerning the law; which one do any here purposely break and pretend you don't?
Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

 

[follower]

This has nothing to do with legalistic.It is just wise advise.

does it become legalistic if there's a penalty for disobeying ? or is it still advice? like if your told don't run a red light, then you run a red light anyway, and get a $180 fine (that's the fine around here), was that just advise or was it legalistic ? (i think it's both, with a gentle meaning for the word 'legalistic')