RE: legalism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Faith] >> General Faith >> FaithWalk - Protestants Only



Message

DaveW -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 3:13:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

My comment in post #10 was that legalism or antinomianism "can readily become extreme end results" of certain doctrinal traditions, not that one camp "tends to err" on certain sides. Do you feel labelling Holiness doctrine as "the camp that tended to err on the side of legalism" is any less harsh than labeling Reformed doctrine as "the camp that 'tends to err' on the side of lawlessness"? Is legalism any more grievous a problem than antinomianism in your opinion, Dave?
Well, I don't believe that taking liberties with the word has anything to do with being Reformed or Arminian or Wesleyan, etc. I know some very strict presbyterian brothers (Reformed) and some facets of the United Methodist (Wesleyan) are very "loose."

As to being "anti-nomian," as a Messianic I look at that subject differently than most here.

For me, coming from an extreme Holiness background, the pro-Torah "legalism" of the Messianic movement was the most spiritually liberating thing of my adult life. I am definately "nomian" but probably more liberal in my intrepretation as I ever have been.

My bible reads that we are not supposed to turn to the "right" or the "left." (overly strict or overly liberal)



drmark -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 3:38:30 PM)

quote:

My bible reads that we are not supposed to turn to the "right" or the "left." (overly strict or overly liberal)
Great advice, Dave! That's precisely what I meant by referring to the possible doctrinal extremes of legalism and lawlessness. In essentials - unity; in non-essentials - liberty; in all things - charity!



doinkdom -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 4:02:31 PM)

I have serious problems with legalism in others. However, I don't abide by the OP definition at all.

I.E. A local pastor's wife was killed in a tragic car accident. His church is one of the largest in the area and he's served for over 30 years, he and his wife have several children - all of whom, are in the mission field in several countries. This man lost his best friend, his life mate and his ministry helper...tragic. It breaks my heart just thinking about it.

In conveying my concerns that the other local churches should encourage this pastor by sending their condolences, etc. a close friend (who IMO struggles with legalism) pipes up and says, "well, she's with her heavenly father now...and when your theology is 'right' then we should take comfort in knowing that."

[&:]YES, WE KNOW SHE'S IN A BETTER PLACE!!!!!!! DUH.......[&:]

Where's the compassion, where's the love thy neighbor, where's the mercy, the grieving with one another? Shouldn't we be sharing the love of the Father? Not dismissing the grief of this man because of "oh well...she's in a better place?" The man lost his wife! In the blink of an eye, she was gone.

that...IMO...is legalism



deliveredarling -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 4:41:14 PM)

Is that legalism or ignorance? Obviously that lady hasn't experienced the death of a spouse. Anyone who has, does not make a callous claim as that. Although it is probably a true statement, the pain of the loss is the prevailing emotion.

I just don't see that as being legalistic, inexperienced-absolutely.



JimboFletch -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 4:49:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: deliveredarling

Is that legalism or ignorance? Obviously that lady hasn't experienced the death of a spouse. Anyone who has, does not make a callous claim as that. Although it is probably a true statement, the pain of the loss is the prevailing emotion.

I just don't see that as being legalistic, inexperienced-absolutely.

I disagree. It sounds very much like what James wrote:

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
(James 2:15-16)

James calls that an example of dead faith.

Although, the more legalistic types I've known might click their tongues and say, "If she had been living right, she wouldn't have been taken so young."



doinkdom -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 4:53:28 PM)

I suppose it was a bad example. Ya know, the more i think about it, the more I need to go have a chat with her about this and stop talking about it here.

Anyways...for me...legalism is taking God's word beyond the context and then using my personal view as the plumb line for others.



GroupW -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 4:56:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: doinkdom

I suppose it was a bad example. Ya know, the more i think about it, the more I need to go have a chat with her about this and stop talking about it here.

Anyways...for me...legalism is taking God's word beyond the context and then using my personal view as the plumb line for others.


Not a bad stab at a definition....I kinda like it.



SonInMe1 -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 4:58:29 PM)

Both camps are wrong.

The position in the middle is wrong too.

I know this may be hard to understand and comprehend but none of our doctrines are 100% correct.

I think legalism exists in both camps.

I think there are many people, in both camps, who believe their doctrine is inerrent. That is legalism.

When we believe more in our church or doctrine than we do in God, thinking we can understand God, not recognising His ways are above our's, and criticize other's beliefs as from false teachers, we have devolved into a pharseetical belief.

We are not God. We are not perfect. We don't know it all...

why represnt our beliefs in an other way?

Pride..is pride, is pride.



GroupW -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 5:02:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SonInMe1

We don't know it all...

Speak for yourself! [;)]


quote:


Pride..is pride, is pride.


Yeah, whatever.[:D]



doinkdom -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 5:05:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SonInMe1

Both camps are wrong.

The position in the middle is wrong too.

I know this may be hard to understand and comprehend but none of our doctrines are 100% correct.


wow, this intro just makes me want to read more [8D] At least everybody's wrong...well, almost everyone.

Anyways...there is a biblical mandate for calling out the wolves, the false teachers, etc.

But I would agree that there are better ways to do this.

What do you mean by "camps" cause I always think Arm vs Cal when I see this.



URForgiven -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 5:20:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: deliveredarling

Is that legalism or ignorance?

I just don't see that as being legalistic, inexperienced-absolutely.


Hello DD[;)]

Perhaps we need to define legalism?

Legalism is trying to attain or maintain rightness (righteousness) with God by human effort.

Legalism is the opposite of grace, and stands opposed to it. It is a serious enough problem that God devotes a whole book (Galatians) just to refute it. In Galatians God calls legalism "another gospel", and that is the kindest thing He says...

Galatians 3:1-3 
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

Legalists place a high premium on commandment keeping and obedience. There is nothing wrong with obedience as long as one understands that the only way to live a consistently obedient lifestyle is by letting Christ live through us...not be focusing on Law. We only obey the gospel when we are trusting Christ to live in and through us by the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is Christ who is the author and finisher of our faith...not us. (Heb. 12:2).

Legalism is insidious because undercuts the faith of the very people who are zealous for the Lord. Their zeal is admirable but also useless and ultimately dangerous to the body of Christ.

Peace



deliveredarling -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 5:23:19 PM)

I fail to see how this statement:
quote:



I.E. A local pastor's wife was killed in a tragic car accident. His church is one of the largest in the area and he's served for over 30 years, he and his wife have several children - all of whom, are in the mission field in several countries. This man lost his best friend, his life mate and his ministry helper...tragic. It breaks my heart just thinking about it.

In conveying my concerns that the other local churches should encourage this pastor by sending their condolences, etc. a close friend (who IMO struggles with legalism) pipes up and says, "well, she's with her heavenly father now...and when your theology is 'right' then we should take comfort in knowing that."


reflects this statement[8|]

quote:


I disagree. It sounds very much like what James wrote:

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
(James 2:15-16)

James calls that an example of dead faith.


What does that have to do with dead faith? I can see where you are going with the scripture, but how it pertains to the woman's theology statement, I don't get it.

Still don't see legalism, looking at it even further the ignorance of the woman is even more impressive[sm=shakinghead.gif]



SonInMe1 -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 5:27:32 PM)

I think its hard to be legalistic if you know you are not God.



doinkdom -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 5:29:05 PM)

When someone says that having the correct theology takes care of many emotional situations, it's usually because they are Hyper-Calvinist, ultra-logical - why get upset over these matters when we know the end result?
Meaning...not only do they adhere to TULIP, but believe that those who do not, are not truly saved.

That's the background on that...

URForgiven has the best descriptive answer yet to legalism[:)] very good job.



GroupW -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 5:50:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: doinkdom

URForgiven has the best descriptive answer yet to legalism[:)] very good job.


Actually, if you combine yours with his I think you get a pretty good result. There are two impacts to legalism - the impact on my relationship with God (URForgiven's definition) and the impact of legalism on my relationship with others (your definition). Both are extremely damaging and get in the way of faith.

BT



RJR_fan -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 6:36:46 PM)

quote:

For me, coming from an extreme Holiness background, the pro-Torah "legalism" of the Messianic movement was the most spiritually liberating thing of my adult life.


The healthiest portion of the Reformed community embrace "theonomy." As the writer of Psalm 119 said, we find in God's Law our wisdom, our delight, our joy, our blueprint for joyous and fruitful living. We view Anglo-American "Common law" as a precious heritage, the application of God's Word to local circumstances for a thousand years or more. I rejoice to see you give honor to Torah -- it's the Talmudists who joined forces with the pagan Romans to crucify our Lord.



deliveredarling -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 7:19:23 PM)

quote:


Hello DD


Hi URF[sm=wave.gif], sure is good to see you, it's been awhile.

quote:


Legalists place a high premium on commandment keeping and obedience. There is nothing wrong with obedience as long as one understands that the only way to live a consistently obedient lifestyle is by letting Christ live through us...not be focusing on Law. We only obey the gospel when we are trusting Christ to live in and through us by the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is Christ who is the author and finisher of our faith...not us. (Heb. 12:2).


As you know, this is where we disagree. I believe we have to put forth effort in order to be obedient and don't consider that at all legalistic. Requiring me to go to church three times a day and pray in a certain manner in order to keep my salvation, I consider that to be totally legalistic.
I understand that "keeping" certain rules aren't really going to make a didly bits difference in the end.

doinkdom,

quote:

When someone says that having the correct theology takes care of many emotional situations, it's usually because they are Hyper-Calvinist, ultra-logical - why get upset over these matters when we know the end result?
Meaning...not only do they adhere to TULIP, but believe that those who do not, are not truly saved.


Thank you for explaining this. I was still beating my head against the wall trying to figure out how that played into legalism[sm=hammerhead.gif]
I still don't get the whole TULIP thing. I don't think I have to ? to understand salvation.



RJR_fan -> RE: legalism (7/14/2008 9:17:27 PM)

quote:

I believe we have to put forth effort in order to be obedient and don't consider that at all legalistic.


This is the love of God that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not grievous: For whosoever is born of God overcometh the world. And this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

God's Grace straightens me out on the inside. God's Law gives me the wisdom I need to live successfully, blessedly, and fruitfully, in the outside world. For example, the Book of Leviticus showed me how to be a better technical writer, how to be more successful at my vocation.



makarizo -> RE: legalism (7/15/2008 7:46:24 AM)

what about the good samaritan? he was not being legalistic (Luke 10:33)

if I understand this parable, the priest and Levite were being legalistic by not helping



bluestone -> RE: legalism (7/15/2008 8:44:59 AM)

Perhaps in it's most basic form, legalism is requiring man made rules to be followed in order to secure salvation.

It's close cousin would be expecting new believers to have the same convictions and lifestyles as those who have been in the faith a long time.

AND requiring those from other cultures to adopt our Western culture, as thought ours were more holy.


Examples:
A real Christian would never go to the beach. They may see a skimpy bathing suit. Or stand in the same water as the opposite sex.

A real Christian reads my favorite translation of the Bible.

A real Christian would forsake their tribal dress and dress like us.



drmark -> RE: legalism (7/15/2008 9:18:57 AM)

quote:

I think there are many people, in both camps, who believe their doctrine is inerrent. That is legalism.
Whoa, SonInMe1, hold on here! Surely you don't think that inerrant doctrine is impossible. Are there no true essentials of Christianity? Does calling true doctrine inerrant make me a legalist? I don't think so!



deliveredarling -> RE: legalism (7/15/2008 11:32:44 AM)

quote:


Examples:
A real Christian would never go to the beach. They may see a skimpy bathing suit. Or stand in the same water as the opposite sex.



I'm in big trouble then..... The beach is my most favorite place to go.



Liveloved -> RE: legalism (7/15/2008 12:04:40 PM)

quote:

I'm in big trouble then..... The beach is my most favorite place to go.


That's the whole problem with legalism, DD. It is the meeting of an outward standard of righteousness. It misses the essential, the heart change that God desires. Jesus frequently spoke to ones who were outwardly righteous. He was harsh with them. They were following what they perceived to be the Law. And lots of people probably found themselves in big trouble. . . because meeting their standard of righteousness was stringent. But it did not save them. The Apostle Paul was described as being found "blameless as to the righteousness which is in the Law", yet He was unsaved. This kind of righteousness leads to pride which is a constant sin which keeps you from God. It is what I call religious lawlessness.



SonInMe1 -> RE: legalism (7/15/2008 1:40:36 PM)

quote:

you don't think that inerrant doctrine is impossible.


100%? No, 100% pure doctrine is impossible for this reason. There is absolute truth, no question. However, absolute truth is a charactoristic of God, that defines God and the fact of the matter is, none of us, our churches, our pastors and certainly our doctrine, are God.

No one's doctrine is 100% infallable. There are basic christian truths that must be met to make someone a christian, but the rest....somewhat debateable.

Only a legalist, with pride in their interpretations, would say their doctrine is without flaw.



drmark -> RE: legalism (7/15/2008 1:59:31 PM)

quote:

No one's doctrine is 100% infallable. There are basic christian truths that must be met to make someone a christian, but the rest....somewhat debateable.
So how does anyone "meet basic Christian truths in order to be made a Christian" if no doctrine is 100% infallible? Maybe I'm getting lost in your semantics but this makes no sense whatsoever to me!



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI