Define: Legalist

As far as giving a poignant and concise definition that would cover all bases, I'm not sure that I, personally, can do that concisely. However, as to what "legalism" is, in the words of the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it."

Ed

 

I would like to see the quotes where anyone called the condemning those things legalistic?

 

It is not legalism to expect people to repent of sins. I wasn't even hinting at that! I hope you don't think that I was.

 

We probably are. I think when the term is used on this board, it is mostly referring to an improper fixation on rules or laws.

 

The way I interpret the term "legalism(ist)" is a person who dwells on the "letter of the law" rather than the "spirit of the law." This can also include interpretive issues of the "forgotten" commandments ("Women shalt not wear pants.") or "secondary issues." (worship style, womwn in ministry, etc.) Things are often seen as prescrptive rather than descriptive.

Often these people look to the rule rather than the person.

 

Here are some of my favorite examples that i have heard from the pulpit:

thou shalt not even think about parking thy car in the parking lot of an establishment that sell or serves alchohol.

Thou shalt not have a myspace, unless you are an adult male over the age of 24.

 

There is a difference between leading them away from temptation, and enforcing extra-biblical guidelines that you think removes them from temptation.

 

SO it's the pastor's responsibility if a church member sins? That kind of destroys priesthood of the believer. Also, he needs to mention any and all possible pitfalls? I'm glad I'm off the hook as a believer.

 

You are adding to what was commented on. Why do you do that? It makes it appear that myself, or another poster, was talking about the extremes that you bring up?

A Pastor is responsible...but don't forget that we are all responsible for ourselves. A Pastor's leadership and guidance crosses lines when he attempts to enforce extra-biblical mandates (such as not parking in a lot owned by a place that sells liquor), and writes it off as leading you from temptation. That is legalism. He is improperly fixated on his own ideas of avoiding temptation.

 

There is avery big difference between these two. Point two is definitely legalism.

 

Very definitely this is possible.

Let me give an example of legalism - A pastor insists on haveing Sunday night services on a "family" day (Mother's Day, Father's Day, Easter Sunday night, etc.) giving a a huge guilt trip on those spending time with our families. Legalism - PM church attendance is more important than spending time together as a family.

You guessed it, I'm not very fond of Sunday night services. In most I've been a part of they're pretty bad if not counterproductive.

 

That does not mean they should submit and obey extra-biblical mandates. You are twisting scripture to support a person's obedience their pastor. Sounds power-hungry to make others look and act like you want them to look and act.

 

Let's get back to the examples used to begin with:

In No. 1 the pastor is not saying you can't do something. He's saying don't even think about doing something. It would be like saying thou shalt not even think about parking thy car in the parking lot of an establisment where men/women disrobe themselves for monetary gain.

Is that legalism. Surely we wouldn't think so.

Now No. 2 does cross the line, because it is a demand placed on a person where the pastor has no right.

For example I know a pastor that told one of his attendees that this person could not speak to or communicate with anyone else in that congregation about certain topics.

Now is that legalism? Does the pastor have the right to say who a person can and can not speak with and what that person can and can not speak about?

 

Thought policing isn't legalism, but a specific rule is?