Fundamentalism or legalism?

Good point!

 

Obedience is not an option.

amen!

 

Exactly! And, just as a little addition, this is where freedom in Christ comes in: if we sin by by our disobedience, we have an advocate, an interceder (sp?). Not only so, but we also have been set free from sin and death so that when we do sin, we do not have to face the tortures of hell. This is freedom in Christ, though certainly not a license to sin.

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: (1 John 2:1)

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (1 John 2:3)

He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (1 John 2:4)

But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. (1 John 2:5)

He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. (1 John 2:6)

For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Romans 6:7)

Julia

 

Well, I don't know about you folks, but I am most certainly not perfect yet.

pfht! yes, you most certainly do! don't gimmie that!

 

I personally think it is quite difficult to define the term "fundamentalism". Some define it this way and others that way. But I believe the written word of God does address the thing called "legalism". Paul speaks much about "works of law". Sometimes he speaks of "law" without "works" preceding, also without an article preceding. This I believe is his referring to what today is called legalism. When Paul says "works of law", without article in front of "law" I believe the meaning is "legal efforts". A person who is "of law" is one who is of legalism, i.e. a legalist. A legalist is characterized by "works of law", legal efforts. Legal efforts, "works of law", are efforts aiming at gaining or maintaining favour with God the Lord. Legal efforts are done apart from God-wrought faith and are sin. Legal efforts are self-imposed efforts at obedience to God with the aim of securing some blessing from God, whether spiritual of temporal. Legal efforts are always sinful and are the opposite of works of faith. A legalist is characterized by these, and by other subtle variants of legal efforts.

A legalist is a person who continuously looks to his own works of obedience in order to draw assurance of salvation from them. A subtle kind of legalist is a so called Calvinist who looks to his supposed works of obedience which he imagines the Holy Spirit within him has enabled him to do. A so called Arminian doing the same is just as legalistic. A person who persists in legalism is manifestly an unconverted person according to Paul in Galatians chapter 5.

Harald

 

Amein, Molly!

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I think that when my own rules for myself (a) cross
over and become what I put upon others, it then
becomes legalism. When these are concepts
clearly set forth in the Bible (b), however, and I just
expect that people will do them, it is not legalism.
I think we have a right to just expect that fellow
believers will follow the Bible, but we, personally,
cannot enforce it.

For examples:
(a) A personal rule I have for myself, that is not
specfically stated in the Bible but is a good
personal rule for me, is that I cover up when I
go out of the house and that I try to look nice. 8oD
But if I expect other women to cover up as I do, I
am wrong and legalistic.

(b) However, the Bible states specifically not to
lie. I should be able to expect other believers to
toe the mark on issues of honesty. I do not feel
bad at all, when I must deal with a person who
claims to be a believer but is dishonest, and I am
intollerent of it.

 

Legalism is trusting in anything else but Christ for your salvation. Acts 15:1

All other issues are debates over holiness/sanctification. Paul makes decisions about these things for all the churches not just individuals.

In soul liberty, I cannot excommunicate you for your stand on sanctification issues but soul liberty does not mean we do what we feel like. Indeed, we are responsible to not put a stumblingblock in front of everyone even if it means giving up what we think we are free to do.

With all the admonitions of Scripture to be like minded and to speak the same thing is it not odd that the Holy Spirit leads us into numerous opinions when He was sent to lead us into all truth ? We sound too much like Pilate and his "What is truth?" rather than seekers of truth.

 

There is an inseparable link between justification and sanctification. To say that we are saved by faith, but sanctified by rules is a misunderstanding of Paul's teaching in Romans 4-8.

Perhaps you were not saying that. Either way, I did want to say that. In 1 Thess 5:24 (I think) it says that we are sanctified by God himself. He does the work. Just as you have received Christ by faith, so walk in it. In fact, Paul told the Galatians that they were foolish to believe that a person could be justified by faith but made perfect by works of the flesh.

 

Right. Jesus is our salvation and sanctification. Pick a word for it, maybe the rules/ordinances and such are all a part of doing things decently and in order.

James says that works are the outward expression of our salvation.

Maybe then standards are the outward expression of our inward sanctification.

God looks on the heart and sees both salvation and sanctification is in Christ, but man who looks on the outward sees both in our walk.

Doctrine is both theological and practical. If we are to be holy within then that holiness should express itself in some outer manifestation that is understood by all.

Since God does not have 12 shades of holiness then all His people should be in agreement on what constitutes holy activity or action.

Instead we see more of a Judges concept where every person does that which is right in his/her own eyes and the others better just shut up and put up with it if they don't like it and I do not see that concept displayed anywhere in the Old or New Testament.

The Amish and the Mennonites have the basic idea right. Baptists should have some form of uniform or uniformity instead of a rampant form of antinomianism. We may not all have to wear the same suit style per se, but modesty concepts should be the same for all. Something is either modest or not and a common definition for modest should be held. Paul made rules for all the churches not just the Roman ones or the Greek ones.

1 Cor 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. (KJV)

Also, if any man question his authority to give commandments for all he was quite straightforward.

1 Cor 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. (KJV)

Our current concept of soul liberty or grace is really tantamount to anarchy and chaos causing confusion and we know where that comes from. That is why we are impotent.

 

Fundamentalism is following sound Christian doctrine.
Legalism is teaching for noctrine the commandments of men.
IMHO