Hagios17 has legalistic beliefs?

[Hagios17]

:eek: ... lol. I never knew that. can anyone tell me why... cough, umm arunma;) hint hint:P

[arunma]

:eek: ... lol. I never knew that. can anyone tell me why... cough, umm arunma;) hint hint:P

I stated that you have legalistic beliefs because you believe that things that come from outside of one's body can defile him. I am referring specifically to your beliefs that "oriential fighting arts" (martial arts), secular yoga, and other such things are of the devil.

[Hagios17]

Motivate what you are saying, quoting the things I have said that imply this.

[RichardT]

:eek: ... lol. I never knew that. can anyone tell me why... cough, umm arunma;) hint hint:P

No, you certainly aren't a legalist for practicing biblical seperation. You would be a legalist for believing that by doing these things you would somehow attain salvation, which is a false dogma.

[arunma]

Motivate what you are saying, quoting the things I have said that imply this.


I think this post of yours is a good example:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30575343&postcount=6

Here you have posted several videos of things you consider "occult." But none of them fit the bill. The first one in particular seems especially innocuous. I say this out of concern for you: this displays the paranoia and unjustified suspicion that is common of legalists.

[arunma]

No, you certainly aren't a legalist for practicing biblical seperation. You would be a legalist for believing that by doing these things you would somehow attain salvation, which is a false dogma.

I made the following comments on another thread about fundamentalism, but I think they will elucidate my point here as well.

Therein lies the error of fundamentalism. The glorious Gospel truth of by grace are you saved is turned into a merely intellectual statement. Based on my experiences with fundamentalists, it appears that they treat the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith as something that Christians must accept on merely an intellectual level, as if they were studying for a theology examination that God will administer to them on the far side of the pearly gates. I ask: what is the meaning of sola gracia if a person accepts the doctrine on an intellectual level, but lives like he is saved by his works? Parroting the phrase "by grace are you saved" is meaningless if one does not act this out in his life. In enforcing any extrabiblical rules on the church, a person is practicing works-based righteousness, regardless of how many times he can say "saved by grace through faith."

[RichardT]

I made the following comments on another thread about fundamentalism, but I think they will elucidate my point here as well.

Therein lies the error of fundamentalism. The glorious Gospel truth of by grace are you saved is turned into a merely intellectual statement. Based on my experiences with fundamentalists, it appears that they treat the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith as something that Christians must accept on merely an intellectual level, as if they were studying for a theology examination that God will administer to them on the far side of the pearly gates. I ask: what is the meaning of sola gracia if a person accepts the doctrine on an intellectual level, but lives like he is saved by his works? Parroting the phrase "by grace are you saved" is meaningless if one does not act this out in his life. In enforcing any extrabiblical rules on the church, a person is practicing works-based righteousness, regardless of how many times he can say "saved by grace through faith."

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/biblicalseparation.html

[arunma]

Richard, it would be a far better idea for you to speak with your own words instead of posting links. Besides that, you know that I generally don't read links unless they are posted for some useful reason.

[PETE_]

No, you certainly aren't a legalist for practicing biblical seperation. You would be a legalist for believing that by doing these things you would somehow attain salvation, which is a false dogma.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/biblicalseparation.html


The first quote is not what the site you posted says about about separation. One thing is says should cause separation are differing views on salvation. We know that you and Haglios have different views on salvation, so why are neither of you separating over it.

There are of course some false teachings and things that are clearly against God, but when we take things in those grey areas and use them to question the salvation or sincerity of other Christians, we have crossed a line.

[Seeker of the Truth]

Geez Hagios, like 3/4 of the Baptist forums has a thread created by you :P

[RichardT]

. We know that you and Haglios have different views on salvation, so why are neither of you separating over it.

We do? What's his view?

[arunma]

We do? What's his view?

Hagios claims to be a Calvinist. As far as we know, you do not.

[RichardT]

Hagios claims to be a Calvinist. As far as we know, you do not.

Ok, I knew that. But how is his method of salvation different than mine?

[Hagios17]

No, you certainly aren't a legalist for practicing biblical seperation. You would be a legalist for believing that by doing these things you would somehow attain salvation, which is a false dogma.

Not by works of me, but works of Christ:amen:

[Hagios17]

I think this post of yours is a good example:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30575343&postcount=6

Here you have posted several videos of things you consider "occult." But none of them fit the bill. The first one in particular seems especially innocuous. I say this out of concern for you: this displays the paranoia and unjustified suspicion that is common of legalists.

I think this post of yours is a good example:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30575343&postcount=6

Here you have posted several videos of things you consider "occult." But none of them fit the bill. The first one in particular seems especially innocuous. I say this out of concern for you: this displays the paranoia and unjustified suspicion that is common of legalists.

I asked for a quotation: "citation: a short note recognizing a source of information or of a quoted passage" and you have given me a link. Dont be lazy, go through my posts and provide adequate quotations that show I am a legalist. Make sure you don't add your own context to the quotes, that is if you are bold enough to venture through my threads.

Everything to you is innocuous.
It also amazes me that you, a hindu, believe that Hinduism can be secularised, perhaps even Christianised. How silly.

[Hagios17]

Geez Hagios, like 3/4 of the Baptist forums has a thread created by you :P

What can i say:D lol

[Hagios17]

Hagios claims to be a Calvinist. As far as we know, you do not.

He does:eek: lol?

[Hagios17]

I'm not under any brand of theology.

[arunma]

He does:eek: lol?

You made a whole thread about it earlier. Have you changed your mind?

[RichardT]

Up to now, I still believe in free will, I believe free will is biblical... I already pulled out the verses in question in another thread... (albeit, I do know that most protestant reformers rejected free will arguments)