Legalism

The Bible says drunkenness is sin; just like it says homosexuality is sin.
There is no gene for alcoholism.
There is no gene for being gay.
There is no gene for lesbianism.
There is no gene for adultery.
There is no gene for being a murderer.
There is no gene for being a thief.
There is no gene for bestiality.
There is no gene for witchcraft or any other part of the occult.

But there is a gene for the sin nature which we inherit from Adam.
It puts us under a curse which will not be removed until Jesus comes again.
Until that time we make our choices whether to be drunk or whether to commit the various sins of immorality. No one can blame them on our genes or DNA.

 

DHK, you're confusing drunkenness (a sinful act) with alcoholism (a physical condition). Two separate issues. It's not a sin to be an alcoholic, nor is it a sin to be physiologically predisposed to alcoholism. It is, however, a sin to be a drunkard, regardless of predsposition. In the same manner, it's not a sin to be physiologically predisposed to being overweight. It is, however a sin to be a glutton, regardless of predisposition.

It is NOT, however, a sin to simply consume food or wine. To the topic, it is legalism to assert that consumption of alcohol is a sin for all.

 

There has never been a conclusive study on a gene. It is pure speculation.

 

Don't try and change the subject Johnv. The question that I am asking is how Thinkingstuff knows what to say to a person. He's told us that he tells someone with the "gene" one thing and the person without the "gene" another. I'm only trying to figure out how he knows if the person has the "gene" before speaking to them.

 

I'm not changing the subject. I'm answering the question directly. What one says to one person is the same as what one says to all: Drunkenness is categorically a sin, but drinking alcohol is and of itself isn't categorically a sin. Likewise, whether a person is predisposed to being overwieght, or not the message is the same: gluttony is categorically a sin, but consuming food is not categorically a sin.

 

The question isn't for you to answer. Thinkingstuff has said HE says something different to two different types of people. I can appreciate that YOU say you will say the same thing, but Thinkingstuff says HE says different things. I'm trying to determine how HE (not you!) decides which person gets which message.

 

It's a public forum. His answer might be different from mine, or it may not. I appreciate that my $.02 might not be his, or yours, but anyone can answer.

 

I disagree with the above statement.
Alcoholism is not simply a physical condition. It is a sinful condition.
It is the same as a drug addict. It is not a sickness but an addiction brought upon by the person's own sin. Sin has its consequences. In both cases the consequence of those particular sins may be an early death, and certainly will be poor health.

 

When you word it like that, I don't disagree. My point, though, is that being a drunkard is not the same as beign an alcoholic. If you never touch another drink again, you will still be an alcoholic, but you're never be a drunkard.

Further, having a predisposition to becoming an alcoholic (if such a thing can be demonstrated) is not the same as being an alcoholic, and not the same as being a drunkard. You can bave a predisposition and not be an alcoholic. Likewise, you can be an alcoholic and not be a drunkard. They're not synonymous, but they're not unrelated.

 

Tim, I agree with what you say. I guess I did not make myself clear. Many of the topics discussed here (wearing shorts to church, etc.) I do not agree with. But, I do not say they are sinful. I think you read too much into my "strict adherence" comment. God's moral law does not address the way we dress, except to require modesty, (the problem here, IMHO, is not what is written, but our imperfect understanding of what is written). If one wants to watch the Super Bowl, that is okay with me. I do not think we should allow it to interfere with worship to the extent that one does not attend worship services, even though he normally would do so. In matters like this, we should leave the determination of sin to God and to Him alone. Each of us is entitled to his/her preferences. We should not, however, try to make our preferences be adhered to by others.

 

You don't know what legalism is.

hang on, folks, this person is adding something to the handbook for life, now he presents the gospel according to Webster.

we? you have a mouse in your pocket? Because "we" doesn't include ME. And DHK has the CLASSIC definition of legalism according to EVERY Pastor in my life....SBC and IFB....I don't know what your modernistic church thinks. When you called me a liar, I lost all respect for you.

 

I asked my wife of 28 years and she said I am no Paul Harvey. She is too addicted to my personality and also knows I'm not bitter. I don't have the drunkard's gene even though I was a drunk for many years. If the speck in my eye you've missed is the one about the champagne, better look closer.Yes, I'm a 25% glutton because hamburgers were offered up to the Burger King. Alcohol is only necessary for bitter people: those trying to drown sorrow, those who are sorry they aren't gluttons and for ignorance to abound from the mouths of bitter fools. DHK nailed it fellas, wallow till you swallow.

 

I think I have figured it out now- the legalists won't be satisfied until everyone else is as bitter, unhappy, and cynical as they are.

I'll just enjoy my freedom in Christ, thank you.

 

Very few, if any, are actually legalistic.

Can you show me where this is being done?

Are you inferring that Jesus, Paul, Peter and the inspired writers of the Scriptures were snobs? Or are you inferring that they all used Merriam-Webster and spoke English.

Bring it on!

So do you just pick your definition according to your own convenience, or according to how the Bible defines what legalism is? What are your guidelines for picking and choosing your definition? I find it interesting that you didn't pick the one definition that was categorized "theology." Why not?

And your point is?

The fact is that there is only one correct definition of the word legalist or legalism. If you don't know what it is, I suggest you find out.

That is great. The Apostle Paul was dishonest, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit at that!! Who can we trust!! I suppose Merrian-Webster will have to become our sole authority in all matters of faith and doctrine, instead of the Bible. Is this your belief?

Will it stand up in God's court of law?

Here is the definition you ignored:

If you study the Book of Galatians you will find out that Paul teaches legalism is when one attaches works to salvation. Paul rebuked the Judaizers when they demanded that keeping the law and circumcision be required for salvation. They were legalists, and that is what legalism is--demanding that works (wearing skirts, long hair, right music, etc.) be required for salvation. That is legalism. Study the Book of Galatians. If you demand to use a man-made definition then you are wrong. That is not how the Bible defines legalism. That is how our some misguided people define it.
Legalism is always associated with salvation.

 

I can't help every pastor in your life didn't know how to use a dictionary.

And you did say I brought up SBC when I clearly didn't..
Mistake? OK.. I'll believe you overlooked the 2 previous posts before mine and thought I mentioned it first... I apologize for calling you a liar.
YOu said you were mistaken, I'll accept that.

But please recognize that you are basing your philosophy on only ONE definition of Legalism.. when there are other definitions that are just as valid.

And I am not adding anything to the handbook for life.. but as English speaking people we had better know the definitions of the words we use.

And if your pastor doesn't recognize that "legalism" has more than one meaning, feel free to pass this thread on to him. HE may learn something from this ABC-USA Pastor!

Hey, I was once like you!... but God blessed me by allowing me to learn from some great ministers that showed me that although I was saved, I had not allowed myself to be free from legalistic bondage that former pastors, even my dad, had chained me too.

NO Dancing
No cards
Women wearing dresses in church only
Women can't speak in church at all
No CCM
3 times a week in church makes one holy..

Those are just an example of the junk I heard growing up.
YES JUNK!

They were taught from the pulpit.. but have NO bible to back them up.
Just opinions of the preacher.
Preached as Words from God!

As a preacher I only have 40 minutes a week on a Sunday morning to give my congregation the word of God. I'm NOT going to waste that time preaching my opinions, but "thus saith the word of God"

And your legalistic rules are NOT the word of God...
You are adding too the word of God.

 

Show me from the Bible the word Legalism.. legalists. Paul was attacking JUDAIZERS.. which does fall under the number 2 definition that I mentioned that you said I ignored.

YOu just can't accept that there are other valid meanings to "legalism" in the English language, than the one you are using.

A dictionary tells you the meanings of the words you use.
Yes a dictionary is the final authority to the meanings of words.
To disagrees makes you sound ignorant.

My guidelines for the words I use when speaking English is what the words mean to convey a thought..

And when legalists use excessive rules that are not even in the Bible.. I will use the term legalism. Because in the English language.. that is a definition of "Legalism"... by not only ONE respected dictionary.. but 2.

If you don't see how members on this board have added rules to the Bible and then measure themselves and others to the extra biblical rules, then you must be blind.

 

¡Soy rodeado por la gente obstinada!

 

First, the NT was written in Greek not English.
Second, context defines words more than a list of meanings.
Therefore choose the meaning of the Greek word in question that best fits the context in which it is used. Remember that the Apostles did not use the KJV. The context of the entire book of Galatians was Paul dealing with legalism--the Judaizers. I am sorry if you can't see that.

 

Yes... in the book of Galatians, the best meaning to apply to the Judaizers IS the definition of legalism that you are using.. I agree 100%

But no one here is even close to a Judaizer.. No one is talking about Salvation...

Get past that and look at what the rest of us are saying.

YES.. legalism has the meaning of adding works to salvation...

BUT IT ALSO HAS A VALID DEFINITION IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (Not screaming. .but emphasizing here )

And that valid definition in English, and what the majority of the English speaking world means when they say, "legalism" is the excessive adherence to a strict rule of law.

IN this definition, many Christians are guilty of legalism, because they add to the word of God by making rules based on their interpretation of passages, and then not realizing their rules are not God's rules.. but they try to measure holiness in others by them.

I completely understand your definition.. I agree that it is a GREAT definition.. but it is not the ONLY definition..

Words can and do have more than one definition in English... and it depends on the context in which we use them as to which definition is applied.

When I speak of a Christian that is a Legalist.. I am using the meaning of "Excessive adherence to the strict rule of law"..

When I speak of a lost person that is a legalist, I am using your definition...
Because by that very definition of the legalism, a person cannot be saved and be a legalist... they are trying to work themselves to Heaven, and therefore on their way to Hell.

 

If I were to say I was going to retire, what would I mean...

It would all depend on the context right?
That is all I am saying here.. .

There is not ONLY one right meaning to retire.
There is not ONLY one right meaning to legalism.

Both meanings are valid.. depending on the context.