Can you be...

So what are the uncontested biblical theological definitions found in the Bible for the words legalism, legalistic and legalist? Are the words legalism, legalistic and legalist found in the Bible? It seems to me that the words legalism, legalistic and legalist are useless theological words to use if there are not any uncontested theological definitions found in the Bible for them. All ready there are several definitions legalism found in posts on this thread. Which one is the is the uncontested Biblical definition found in the Bible? Are we allowed to create any definition that seems right in our own eyes?


Is it this one?

Is it this one?

Is it this one?

Is it this one?

Is it this one?

In the 1994 (The Merriam Webster Dictionary) the definition for legalism is:
Legalism (n) ---
1) strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral Code.
2) a legal term.


Why don't we select this broad and relative dictionary definition as our standard. The meaning of strict, literal and excessive is left up the eyes of the beholder. That way everybody around me is a legalist. :thumbs:




David Geminden

 

If that's it, I am.

No long hair on men, Read only the KJV, and so on. :applause:

 

I agree totally with Tim. I would like to know if today's neo-fundamentalist label themselves neo-fundamentalists or just plain fundamentalists?

I have the The Fundamentals and I cannot remember seeing anything regarding secondary separation within it's pages. Maybe I'm missing it. Anyway, one of the halmarks of the neo-fundamentalists movement (as I see it) involves the KJVO issue. Yet I see nothing in the The Fundamentals on this and yet the RV and ASV were in print long enough for it to influence the articles.

I do not mean to offend anyone here.

 

There are none.
Everything in the Bible is contested by somebody.

But here is a definition of 'legalism' that I
like from the very words of Jesus:

Mat 23:23 (Geneva Bible 1599):

Wo be to you, Scribes and Pharises, hypocrites:
for ye tithe mynt, and annyse, and cummyn,
and leaue the weightier matters of the law,
as iudgement, and mercy and fidelitie.
These ought ye to haue done, and not to haue left the other.

That reminds me, I need to tithe my dill ('anise') plant - freeze
change goes to ½ Sunday - I can't pick my dill tithe on Sunday .

The neo-fundamentalists called themselves
'fundamental'. The world deriding them calls
them 'fundie (meaning 'fun-die').
Those of us Fundamentalists who don't
go in for un-fundamental, un-Biblical, un-American
doctrines bear the onus of the
"don't touch, don't lick, don't do" type legalists

Col 2:20-22 (Geneva Bible, 1999 Edition):
Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the ordinances
of the world, why, as though ye liued in ye world,
are ye burdened with traditions?
21 As, Touch not, Taste not, Handle not.
22 Which al perish with the vsing,
and are after the commandements and doctrines of men.

Say, that is a pretty good definition of legalism:

As, Touch not, Taste not, Handle not.


I called them Ultra-fundamentalists (beyond
fundamentlism) in an older writing:
-----------------------------------------------------
Last revised 13Oct07

The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism
(this are the ones I believe):

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

The ultra-fundamentals:

1. Anti-Bible (KJBO = King James Bible Only)
2. Pro-ignorance
3. Anti-success
4. Pro-legalism
5. Pro-hyper-seperation
6. Anti-alien (Hate of gays & women, racism, etc.)

Typical statements made by the ultra-fundamentalists:
(note that the world calls them "fundies"
and we real fundamentalists have to bear their
burden unjustly):

1. The KJB replaces the original language manuscripts as being God's word
2. Calling "seminary": "cemetery"
3. Jerry Falwell sold out to the Devil
4. violating Galations 2:21 (Geneva Bible, 1599):
As, Touch not, Taste not, Handle not.
5. If one doesn't describe their fundamentalism
in the same exact words as another - then the other
must separate from the one.
6. Jews killed Christ; kill a gayboy for Krist
-----------------------------------------------------

 

Okay, explain this to me.

I believe all ,The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism.

I'm KJV only, I'm not for gay marriage, I don't hate them, I hate their sin.

I'm not a racist or anti-woman.

I'm not anti-success, but we need to focus more on God than work. God comes first.

Jerry Falwell wasn't a bad guy was he? I can't find anything bad about him? I thought he was a good man. What do you think?

Explain please.

 

One has to belileve all six of the noted
beliefs of the hyper-fundamentalists to be
one of these (they aren't real fundamentalists
at all - they are wolves in sheep clothing).

I think since you only PASS one of the six
criteria that 'hyper-fundamentalist' doesn't
describe you. I describe shoes - if the shoes
fit - wear them; if the shoes don't fit - don't
wear them.

Nevertheless, I know some folks that believe &
practice all six of the hyper-fundamentals and
hardly any of the fundamentals.

 

So, I guess I'm fine then?

I believe I'm fine.

 

You are probably fine.

But watch out when the KJVOs start preaching
that the KJV1769 Edition can be used as a
data base for divining the future -- this is NOT
legal. Trust only in God to Guide you in the future.
There are no private messages for you or me
in the Bible. The Bible message is the same for
you as for me (which is what we discuss a lot at the
BB).

Do you know about the Baptist Doctrine of
Compentency of the Believer?

 

I agree, there aren't any special messages for anyone in the Bible. We all follow the same way.

Is this what you mean?

Baptist Distinctives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Naw, anyone who doesn't go with the definition I gave is a legalist! :laugh:

Welcome to the BB and enjoy the occasional fireworks. :wavey:

 

Exactly!
"Compentency of the Believer" there is under
the paragraph "# 5 Individual Soul Liberty"

 

I guess James was legalistic when he said "Faith without deeds is dead"