The tricks of the legalists

Colossians · Sep 6, 2003

TRICK NUMBER ONE

Legalists partition the law into things like "ceremonial", "sanitary", "carnal", and of course, their prize possession, you guessed it (drum roll.....) THE TEN COMMANDMENTS!!!

Of course, such partitioning is easily found in the NT (not).

The legalist has a result he wishes to 'prove', so in typical high-school science prac fashion, he rigs the experiment backward, reworking the data to achieve a desired result. He has to do this in view of the proliferation of NT verses which tell us things like there has been a change of the law, and that the law was nailed to the cross. He needs a mechanism to separate out the Ten to sustain his dogma.

He has another trick to back this up: he tells us that the 10 commandments were written by God (he says this is God's law), but the rest written by Moses (he says this is Moses' law). He does this to accomodate Acts 15, (which says we are to no longer obey the Mosaic law) while at the same time retaining again the basis of his cult doctrine: the Ten Commandments.

But although legalists are very tricky, God is trickier. He knew that the legalists would do this, so He predestined Moses to break what He had written, so that Moses would have opportunity to re-write them with his own hand (Ex 34:27,28), thus making them irrefutably part of the Mosaic law.

And if this were not enough, He seconded it by making Moses' relatives, the Levites, carry the Tablets, thus signifying to all that it was 'their baby' in the box.

"All things work together for good to those that love God" (even Tablet breaking)

SavedByGrace3 · Sep 6, 2003

legalists.... puhh

you gotta watch them every minute.

pax · Sep 6, 2003

Are you saying the ten commandments don't still apply?!?!?!? Jesus himself has said, "I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill."

Mark 10:17-22

17 As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18 Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 19 You know the commandments: 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.'" 20 He replied and said to him, "Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth." 21 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, "You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." 22 At that statement his face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

Jesus himself tells us to follow the commandments.

Achichem · Sep 6, 2003

Qualitys of an Ithimist:

Put all follower of the law in the same box
Refuse to talk about context in the NT, only in the Old/Jesus Life
Often judgmental but not always
Self-righteous
Refuse to take an in depth look at the spirit
Are limited by the idea of a trinity
Justify any thing that does not come of the writer Paul
Says that one cannot follow the law and still have faith despite Peter, James, John and Jude ect.
Refuse to believe that in Christ kingdom the old law will be the law of the land, despite reading Judges
Refuse to look at the warnings about taking Pauls writings the wrong way
Say God changes
Offer no alternative explanations for verses that are contrary to their ideas

Of course it is easy to see these in others, but what happens when we look inward, is it judging we see or warning.

God Bless,
DaTsar

Philip James · Sep 6, 2003

Love God! Love one another! In this you find the entire Law.

Are we required to keep it? Absolutely! Read 1John 2:3-11

So then, how can we be sure that we are in HIM? By loving God and by loving one another. And if we do this, we have kept the Law.

Peace and Love!
PJ

Colossians · Sep 7, 2003

TRICK NUMBER TWO

The legalist tells everyone that the law which was nailed to the cross (Col 2:14), was only that which was written in the "book of the law" which was placed outside! the ark.

He won't tell you directly why he points out that it was placed outside the ark, for it is part of his training to "get them to come to their own conclusions". Of course, he wants you to conclude that if it was placed outside the ark, it must be inferior to what was placed inside the ark! (He wants you to see this for yourself.) And of course we know what was placed inside the ark don't we....The TEN COMMANDMENTS!

Now the Ark being no longer with us, you would think this would put an enormous hole in the side of the legalist's law boat, that it would render his 10 commandments argument null and void.
But the legalist is a resourceful creature: he has found another copy of the 10 commandments: yes that's right! in Exodus!

What he doesn't realise of course, is that Exodus is in the "book of the law".

KelsayDL · Sep 7, 2003

Re 12:17 -
And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Mt 7:23 -
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Colossians · Sep 8, 2003

Kelsay,

I have replied to this point of yours in "not under the law". Refer to that.

Andrew · Sep 8, 2003

Are you saying the ten commandments don't still apply?!?!?!? Jesus himself has said, "I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill."

So its fulfilled. So why are we trying to fulfill it too? Think we can do a better job?

Colossians · Sep 10, 2003

TRICK NUMBER THREE

The legalist will tell you you are not required to obey the law for salvation. He will say you are now solely justified by faith. "But" he will say (and always be on your guard when you see "but") "although we don't have to obey the law for our salvation, we should obey it because we love God".

Notice the clever connection of "should" with "love"? What he is trying to slip in to your mind is that although you are not required to keep the law for salvation, if you don't keep it out of 'love', then you obviously don't love God. And of course we all know what that means don't we ....!

Good trick huh? The love of the legalist's God is like a bank loan, you have to repay it.
But the love of the Christian's God not only allows for non-repayment: it demands non-repayment.

admtaylor · Sep 10, 2003

I think there's a happy medium here.

thetruthseeker · Sep 10, 2003

Colossians said:
TRICK NUMBER ONE

Legalists partition the law into things like "ceremonial", "sanitary", "carnal", and of course, their prize possession, you guessed it (drum roll.....) THE TEN COMMANDMENTS!!!

Of course, such partitioning is easily found in the NT (not).

The legalist has a result he wishes to 'prove', so in typical high-school science prac fashion, he rigs the experiment backward, reworking the data to achieve a desired result. He has to do this in view of the proliferation of NT verses which tell us things like there has been a change of the law, and that the law was nailed to the cross. He needs a mechanism to separate out the Ten to sustain his dogma.

He has another trick to back this up: he tells us that the 10 commandments were written by God (he says this is God's law), but the rest written by Moses (he says this is Moses' law). He does this to accomodate Acts 15, (which says we are to no longer obey the Mosaic law) while at the same time retaining again the basis of his cult doctrine: the Ten Commandments.

But although legalists are very tricky, God is trickier. He knew that the legalists would do this, so He predestined Moses to break what He had written, so that Moses would have opportunity to re-write them with his own hand (Ex 34:27,28), thus making them irrefutably part of the Mosaic law.

And if this were not enough, He seconded it by making Moses' relatives, the Levites, carry the Tablets, thus signifying to all that it was 'their baby' in the box.

"All things work together for good to those that love God" (even Tablet breaking)

Hi Colossians,

This is hilarious.
After reading this thread I think you should rename it: "The tricks of saying that I love Jesus but not keeping His Commandments."

Okay, back to being serious.

Matthew 14:15 If you love me keep my commandments.

This is simple language isn't it?

Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

There are many more of these verses including the verses pertaining to living a life of lawlessness, which you are promoting.

Why must you "kick again the pricks." Surrender to Jesus.

Your brother in Christ,
TheTruthSeeker

Achichem · Sep 10, 2003

TRICK NUMBER THREE

Click to expand...

The legalist will tell you you are not required to obey the law for salvation. He will say you are now solely justified by faith. "But" he will say (and always be on your guard when you see "but") "although we don't have to obey the law for our salvation, we should obey it because we love God".

Notice the clever connection of "should" with "love"? What he is trying to slip in to your mind is that although you are not required to keep the law for salvation, if you don't keep it out of 'love', then you obviously don't love God. And of course we all know what that means don't we ....!

Good trick huh? The love of the legalist's God is like a bank loan, you have to repay it.
But the love of the Christian's God not only allows for non-repayment: it demands non-repayment.

Hmm, I wonder who this is directed towards.

Anyways since you are talking about what I said I would be happy to explain myself to anyone reading.

What I said is that indeed no one is required to keep the law and indeed faith is what justifies us.

But (thats right but) I am challenging him on what is faith is, I define it as a mind set! If your mind set is different then Gods mind set, then I said you do not walk with God. I never said the law is the be all end all of this; actually I took a section of Galatians which gave a list of things which are and are not in the spirit. Then I define the word precepts of the law as that list. I then explained that since these things are the same things as what the law teaches (minus things of health). Then I made the statement is that it is fine and good not to follow the law but one must still follow the precepts of the law(the list).

TRICK NUMBER TWO

The legalist tells everyone that the law which was nailed to the cross (Col 2:14), was only that which was written in the "book of the law" which was placed outside! the ark.

He won't tell you directly why he points out that it was placed outside the ark, for it is part of his training to "get them to come to their own conclusions". Of course, he wants you to conclude that if it was placed outside the ark, it must be inferior to what was placed inside the ark! (He wants you to see this for yourself.) And of course we know what was placed inside the ark don't we....The TEN COMMANDMENTS!

Now the Ark being no longer with us, you would think this would put an enormous hole in the side of the legalist's law boat, that it would render his 10 commandments argument null and void.
But the legalist is a resourceful creature: he has found another copy of the 10 commandments: yes that's right! in Exodus!

What he doesn't realise of course, is that Exodus is in the "book of the law".

I being the one who he is talking about will try and demonstrate that this is not at all what I implied.

First,

What I said was that now all the law is the word of God. You see the different view points here are:

Colossians implies that he who walks in the spirit has nothing to do with the law.

I responded to this by saying that the law is no longer law just the plain out words of God. You see, I see it as he who walks in the spirit walks as the spirit walks.

You see I explained the bible says this in many places especially James (notice I say a whole letter and not just one part, that is because the letter is 100% consistent with this rational).

Yet, Colossians bases much of his case on a verse in Galatians says and I quote: Law is not of faith and despite my attempt to show him that if context on the letter alone is taken in to account, the possibility of this having that meaning is equivalent to this quote having the same literal take. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.

Despite the fact of evidence of the law playing a role in many peoples lives who are justify by faith: James, Peter, Jude, Paul or King David. He maintains to imply the idea that the law is like sin, he who follows it can not walk in faith, regardless of that persons motives for keeping the law. He implies that he who keeps the law does so only because he is afraid of punishment, despite me not only demonstrating this about myself but also given biblical characters who did the same.

You can see that this is not trick we use but logical statements, taken the wrong way by ithimists (or more commonly known as Paulizers) Paulizers being the name given to those who do the things peter warned about in his letter(or course the followers of, not necessarily them themselves).

I define Follower of the law as someone who follows the law out of faith, and does not condemn. But believes surly that God will have mercy on who he will, they are equivalent to those who do not kept the law, but do not condemn those who do, only brings up their motives.

I define legalist as people who follow the law as law, and thus believe themselves righteous in the law, believe a transgression of any law despite context is grounds for contempt for God.(remember a follower would still tell a person who commits adultery that he is not walking in the spirit, but on such thing as a Sabbath day would only say join or look at your priorities, never believing that those who do not keep the Sabbath are people who do not walk in the spirit. however it may be a first sign of something going amiss, but not necessarily.

Legalists partition the law into things like "ceremonial", "sanitary", "carnal", and of course, their prize possession, you guessed it (drum roll.....) THE TEN COMMANDMENTS!!!

Of course, such partitioning is easily found in the NT (not).

The legalist has a result he wishes to 'prove', so in typical high-school science prac fashion, he rigs the experiment backward, reworking the data to achieve a desired result. He has to do this in view of the proliferation of NT verses which tell us things like there has been a change of the law, and that the law was nailed to the cross. He needs a mechanism to separate out the Ten to sustain his dogma.

He has another trick to back this up: he tells us that the 10 commandments were written by God (he says this is God's law), but the rest written by Moses (he says this is Moses' law). He does this to accomodate Acts 15, (which says we are to no longer obey the Mosaic law) while at the same time retaining again the basis of his cult doctrine: the Ten Commandments.

But although legalists are very tricky, God is trickier. He knew that the legalists would do this, so He predestined Moses to break what He had written, so that Moses would have opportunity to re-write them with his own hand (Ex 34:27,28), thus making them irrefutably part of the Mosaic law.

And if this were not enough, He seconded it by making Moses' relatives, the Levites, carry the Tablets, thus signifying to all that it was 'their baby' in the box.

"All things work together for good to those that love God" (even Tablet breaking)

Hey look one not pointed at me, yah he actually met a real legalist.

God bless,

DaTsar

Colossians · Sep 10, 2003

Truthseeker apparently thinks that the best way to show that the Ten Commandments were not part of the Mosaic law is to quote John 14:15.

Perhaps he'll top it off by thrilling us with some bible maps of the Jordan valley in his next post.

Colossians · Sep 10, 2003

TRICK NUMBER FOUR

The legalist will happily agree with you that the law schoolmasters us to Christ (Gal 3:24). "BUT", he will say (there's that "but" again), "Christ then shows us to the law!".

"Right!" says the Christian. Now I get it:

"The law schoolmasters us to Christ,
who then leads us to the law,
which then schoolmasters us to Christ,
who then leads us to the law,
which then schoolmasters us to Christ
who then leads us to the law..."
(and round and round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows).

Without exception (and I stress without exception), all satanic doctrines are circular.
The end of the line for the law train is Christ Jesus. It is there we disembark and thank God for a train we will never again board.
"Christ the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth".

Achichem · Sep 10, 2003

To ALL readers:

beware of false teachers!

A reply to me int he other thread,I am in bold.

Colossians said:
You seem to miss the point that if the spirit you know does not walk like God, or Talk like God, Guess what it is not God.
As with all satanic doctrine, you suffer from circularity. You think you can derive that God lives within you by whether you follow the bible, but you have no way of proving the bible was written by God.
I will ask you this: what was the teaching in Christ's words to the pharisees: "You search the scriptures. for you think that in them you have eternal life"?

Take this how you will, but be be warned.

Blindfaith · Sep 10, 2003

Chill people........

Colossians · Sep 10, 2003

Datsar,

PLease do not post replies from one thread onto another. That is ridiculous. We can read your reply on the thread it relates to.

Colossians · Sep 12, 2003

TRICK NUMBER FIVE.

The legalist maintains he agrees with the Christian Church that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law, as is directly stated in Rom 3:21. But he defines faith in agreement with the following assertion of Ellen White:

“Those only who through faith in Christ obey all of God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. They testify* to their love of Christ by obeying all his precepts" (Manuscript 122, 1901, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1118).

*We note how Ellen cleverly uses "testify" rather than "prove", to avoid exposure. It sounds more biblical, and less like a work of the flesh. But we will not refrain from pointing out what the Emperor is wearing: it is really "prove", and not "testify". This use of "testify" is to deceive one into thinking that he keeps commandments because he loves God rather than to prove he loves God, which latter position is in fact the case.)

His definition can be expressed scientifically as:
Faith = Faith + Commandment Keeping.
This is precisely how variables are incremented in computer programs: recursively. Eg: X:=X+1 (incrementing the value of X, redefining itself as it reiterates through a loop).
His ‘faith’ is therefore not a constant, but a variable, and is therefore undefined. It is not faith.

Now we will show the conclusion of this equation by expanding out the right-hand side of the equation; that is, by substituting "Faith" on the left-hand side for the "Faith" on the right-hand side.
(We abbreviate Faith as "F", and Commandment Keeping as "CK".)

F = F + CK
F = [F + CK] + CK
F = [F + CK] + CK + CK
F = [F + CK] + CK + CK + CK
F = [F + CK] + CK + CK + CK + CK

and as we extrapolate to an infinite number of expansions, we get:

F = CK

So his faith is in fact not that which ‘testifies’ of itself through commandment keeping; his ‘faith’ is commandment keeping itself. And that is why he cannot distinguish between the two.

Our faith, however, is not a variable, but a constant. It is faith unappended-to, and varies not.
And being a constant, it declares of itself that it is "the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen".

With our faith constant, we have this “assurance”, this “evidence” of salvation.
With his faith variable, he has neither. (And that is why he does not declare either, but contingency instead.)

SavedByGrace3 · Sep 12, 2003

Colossians said:
Datsar,

PLease do not post replies from one thread onto another. That is ridiculous. We can read your reply on the thread it relates to.

Thou shalt not post replies from one thread onto another.

Sounds like another one of those nasty legalist tricks to me!

(kidding)

The tricks of the legalists

Veteran

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)

Veteran

Faithful

Active Member

Veteran

Seeker of the Way

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Faithful

Veteran

Veteran

Faithful

God's Tornado

Veteran

Veteran

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)

Similar threads