Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Grasshopper, Apr 25, 2002.
Those who are don't recognize it.
Just don't confuse someone who is pursuing personal holiness with what is considered Pharisitical or Legalism. There is a great difference.
If you mean someone who tries to live by a higher standard, if you mean someone who actually tris to live "...above reproach...", if you mean someone who tries not to be a stumbling block to fellow beleivers, if you mean someone that is more interested in what God wants than in his own wants and desires, if you mean someone that does not like CCM, pants on women, long hair on men, rock music, dancing, alcohol, compromise, women preachers, tongues, other versions, movies, etc etc... then I guess there is a "legalist" out there and he is me.
A legalist is... Someone with higher standards than your own.
Respectfully, in the service of the King
I disagree. I would phrase it like this: A legalist is someone who has elevated his preferences (for whatever reason, but usually in the name of "persuing holiness") to the level of "standard", and then tries to impose those standards on others.
If someone doesn't like "CCM, pants on women, long hair on men, rock music, dancing, alcohol, compromise, women preachers, tongues, other versions, movies, etc etc", but doesn't impose those preferences on others, that is perfectly fine - we all have preferences. But when someone imposes those preferences on others, claiming or implying that they make you holier, that is legalism.
If living a life based on principles of the scripture is "legalism" so be it.
Christ told us to, "...come out from among them and be ye separate..." He also told us to, "...love not the world neither the things that are in the world..." He also said that we, "...are a peculiar people..."
The world should be able to look at our appearance and our actions and know that we are different. Our music, activities and attitudes should reflect Christ, not the world.
That's not even close to what I said.
I agree. But again, that's not what legalism is about.
Before I began to study the Word for myself I too called others who have higher standards than myslef legalist. It was so easy to put them in a box, instead of study the Scripture and obey it myself.
I know the word legalism is not even in the Bible. But, my understanding of the true meaning of the word is that if you believe something like using a KJV Bible saves you. Or if a woman dresses as a woman she is only saved by the wearing of women's apparel.
I believe the word means adding something to the death, burial and resurection of Christ as a means of salvation. Which many cults do believe that.
Correction, the world shouldn't be able to look at our appearance and know if we are christians or not...that my friend is pure 100% legalism at the max. It's fully in our attitudes in how we treat each other and those who are not christians as well. If our behaviour does not speak for itself don't attempt to make it up in appearance because that's not where it's at.
Legalism is the strict conformance or adherence to the law. Christians are not under the law but under grace, so why the question of legalism?
Legalism, in its present day manifestations, is two fold. Pharisaical legalism, which thinks that doing certain things makes you more spiritual, and Judiastic legalism, which believes that doing certain things can save you or keep you saved. Both are contra-biblical and the enemy of grace.
Let me share with you three rules that will result in a clear code of ethics for dedicated Christian living:
#1 - Is It of the World?
I John 2:15 - "love not the world
II Cor. 6:14-18 - "be ye separate"
James 4:4,5 - Love of the world is spiritual adultery.
Colossians 3:1,2 - "set your affection on things above."
#2 - Will it Hurt My Body or Grieve the Spirit?
I Cor. 6:19,20 - Your body is the Spirit's temple
I Cor. 3:16,17 - Body abuse brings judgement
Ephesians 4:30 - "Grieve not the Spirit"
Galations 6:7,8 - Sowing to the flesh brings corruption
#3 - Will it Hurt My Testimony?
Matt. 5:14-16 - Our light is to shine
I Tim. 4:12 - We are to be examples
I Thess. 5:22 - "Abstain from all appearance of evil"
Colossians 3:17 - "Do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks."
If it is doubtful-then don't.
I DO NOT CLAIM THAT THIS WILL SAVE YOU!!! I do however believe that we will be more pleasing to the Lord. I really don't care that the liberal left thinks that I am a "legalist." My goal is to be as "Christ like" as I can be and that means that the world and worldly ideals have got to go.
Some need to just keep feeding on the "milk of the word" and one day they will get to the place where they can handle the meat.
I disagree. Now if you are speaking of us wearing our hair in buns and skirts down to the floor and no make-up, that's one thing, and I agree.
But if we as Christian women dress like the world with make-up slathered all over in multiple layers, purple hair, multiple body piercings and tattoos, and letting our femininity hang out all over for the whole world to see, that, my Friend, is quite different and WE SHOULD NOT DRESS AS THE WORLD...that dress is not Christ-Like. And that is not legalism at all, that is called modesty!
But doubtful to whom? If something is doubtful to *you*, you should not do it. If something is doubtful to *me*, I should not do it. But I should not do something just because it is doubtful to someone else. Otherwise, I couldn't do anything. Legalism is when someone imposes their "doubtful" issues on someone else.
I believe the Lord is pleased simply our trying to please him, not because of the actual deeds performed in doing so. Our works are pathetic, our righteousness is dirty rags. God is more interested in the motivation than the deed.
If "handling the meat" means silly things like the accepting the "higher standard" of having women wear dresses instead of pants, I'm not hungry.
"handling the meat" means to be so dedicated to the Word that the little things that we want to hold on to become insignificant to us. All we are interested in is, What does God say?
Did anyone read the 3 points. Why is it that no one wants to take on the Word? You tell me that my ideas are wrong but you leave the scripture alone... it is easy to disagree with man but very difficult to argue with God. AND... I never see anyone giving scripture confirmation to their points. That my friend is the meat!
Yes. But they've only been up for less than an hour.
Why should one "take it on" when one doesn't disagree with it?
Have you even read any of my posts? What I am disagreeing with is how I've defined legalism. I am not disagreeing with the scriptures, or the desire to live a life that is pleasing to God. I have no problem with the scripture you posted. I have a problem with anyone using them to try to make me feel guilty about there own personal opinion on how to apply those scriptures. Again, legalism is about **imposing** your opinion on others.
You posted the verse about being separate from the world. Would you accept someone telling you that the passage means you must sell all your belongings, move out of the city, and join a commune, like the Amish or Hutterites have done, in order to be more pleasing to God? That is how some people understand the passage. That's fine for them, if they want to do that and if they think they are pleasing God by doing that, then I fully respect that. But the moment someone tells me that I have to join them in their commune or start my own if I want to be pleasing to God as well, then that's legalism, and I reject it.
Today legalism is obeying the commandments set forth in the Bible. Not just the Ten Commandments but the commandments in the New Testament.
We have taken the scripture that Jesus will set us free to have a license to live in sin.
Yet the New Testament is full of Thou shalt Not.
A person who follows these commandments today is called a legalist. Even though they are moral standards they are branded a legalist.
We have taken the doctrine of Grace and turned it to a doctrine of Disgrace. We choose to ignore the things that is written such as women should dress modestly. That there are certain behaviors that are not acceptable to Christians and excuse our sinning as weakness of the flesh and do so under the guise of the freedom of grace.
When Paul deals with the Judaizers he was dealing with those who taught that all this saves you but they have nothing to do with salvation but are things that are pleasing to God. John wrote in I John that if we don't obey the commandments then we don't love God. Jesus said the same thing. If we love him we will obey his commandments. This is as plain as the nose on a persons face and needs no personal interpretation.
If you worldly professors out there would study 2 Timothy you might get it; if, you have the Holy Spirit to guide you to the truth. The whole book is study of Holy living; however, you may have to call Paul a legalist then!
[ May 15, 2002, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Ernie Brazee ]
hrhema and Ernie, I wish you would indentify who you are directing your comments to. For now, I'll assume you are talking to me. This response is for both of you.
If scripture says something, I am not arguing against that at all. Where I have an issue though, is when someone's fallible interpretation is thrust upon someone else as being infallible. For example, hrhema mentions "women should dress modestly". I have no problem with that, that's right from scripture, 1 Tim 2. But when someone 3000 miles away from me decides for me that "modest" means only dresses and no pants, and implies that they can do a better job of convicting me than the Holy Spirit can, is it so wrong of me to say "wait a minute"? The phrases "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel" and "women should not wear pants to church" are two entirely different things. One is scripture, the other is someone's personal preference influencing their interpretation of that scripture. Saying women should dress modestly is repeating scripture. Yummy. A woman saying that she wears a dress and not pants, because she feels that is how she wants to dress modestly, is preference. Fine. But saying that women *should* wear a dress and not pants if they want to be modest and thus please God is legalism. Yucky.
Enforcing scripture is not legalism. Enforcing your personal preferences, disguised as scripture, is.