Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

GraceThruFaith · 01-03-2012, 02:42 PM

(01-03-2012 11:12 AM)Tonx Wrote: "We're not like those other churches that force women to wear skirts that cover their ankles. We're not legalistic at all!"

Except we won't allow women to preach or be on the board or let them lead a Sunday school class or Bible study that has men in it. But other than that, we're SO not legalistic.

I don't consider that legalism. Legalism deals with an action/command/principle derived from Scripture and how it relates to one's justification or sanctification. IFB's believe that a women wearing pants negatively affects her sanctification, and possibly her justification (depending on how extreme the IFB camp).

I highly doubt that a church that lets women wear pants feels that allowing a woman to teach Sunday School class where men are present affects the woman's sanctification. It's more along the lines of the church's interpretation of Paul's letter to Timothy.

kaje · 01-03-2012, 03:20 PM

My parents say that all the time about their church, which admittedly, does have a wonderful and humble pastor and has worked very hard to keep any kind of sexual predator very far away from children. The thing is, though, IFB's separate from EVERYONE, even people who believe mostly the same as them (Piper, MacArthur) for trivial things, but there are HUGE issues in IFB churches now that are being overlooked. As a Christian and someone who desires to make Jesus Christ glorified in the world, there is nothing more destructive to the cause of Christ than the very things they tolerate in their churches. Even having the word "Baptist" in your church name can be detrimental now. Why would you ever allow something like that to hurt the cause of Christ. If you're going to separate over music standards, then by ALL means, separate from child molesters.

**Tiarali** · (This post was last modified: 01-03-2012 08:22 PM by Tiarali.)

GraceThruFaith: Everything that an IFB church does is based on their twisted (mis)understanding of scripture. They will state emphatically that it's not about salvation.

And then they will question the salvation or the spiritual maturity of anyone who does not act like they tell them to.

It's legalism, plain and simple. They will argue on that point, they'll never accept it, but it is.

I would agree with you that the examples Tonx mentioned are more to do with the issues of patriarchy, sexism and abuse than legalism, though. And they will have verses to back them up on that too.

Tonx · 01-04-2012, 05:21 PM

Whatever. All I know is that if God can speak through an ass, he can speak through a woman.

**Tiarali** · 01-04-2012, 05:46 PM

Are you calling me an ass?! Wink

Philip the evangelist (Acts 21) had four unmarried daughters who prophesied. They weren't raked over hot coals for it.

**myotch** · 01-04-2012, 05:59 PM

She was saying that you weren't as bad as an ass.

Tonx · 01-04-2012, 06:24 PM

BAHAHAHAHA! No, I'm not calling you an ass! I'm trying to elevate us ABOVE asses! Geez, that was funny - well, maybe not for you. Smile

Btw, interesting little factoid about Phillip. But wasn't he a eunuch? NO WAIT - he baptized a eunuch. For a second there I was quite confused...

**Tiarali** · 01-04-2012, 06:28 PM

Honestly, I'm not even sure it was the same Phil. It was probably a pretty common name.

**Qrayze** · 01-04-2012, 08:19 PM

(01-04-2012 06:28 PM)tiarali Wrote: Honestly, I'm not even sure it was the same Phil. It was probably a pretty common name.

there's a trainer at my gym named Phil.

Tonx · 01-04-2012, 08:37 PM

(01-04-2012 08:19 PM)Qrayze Wrote:
(01-04-2012 06:28 PM)tiarali Wrote: Honestly, I'm not even sure it was the same Phil. It was probably a pretty common name.

there's a trainer at my gym named Phil.

He ever baptize a eunuch?