Is 'Legalism' a sign of a weaker brother?

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by justdan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:

1. Do you have a right to do something that is not wrong of itself even though it causes a another to err or sin?
2. How does GRACE cover wilful sin? Is there a penalty? (HINT: What about chastening and loss of reward?)
3. Please explain exactly what a Spirit-filled, holy life is?
4. If you are not talking about the convictions and standards held by another, whom you call a legalist, what are you talking about?
5. What are the rights that Christian liberty give to you? Please support with chapter and verse.
6. How is your action affected by it's impact upon another?

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]1 Yes, 1 Cor.10:23&24 but with rights come responsibilities.
2. Rom.5:8-21, is how grace covers sin,and of course there are consequences for sin on this earth.
3. Rom.6 ( Paul explained it better than I could!)
4. Someone who tries to impose there preferences on others.
5. 1 Cor. 8,9,and 10 teach the principal
6. I am not sure what you are asking

[/QB][/QUOTE]

You are correct in that these passages address these issues but my mind is boggled that you cannot see the opposite side of the coin as well. Things that are not specifically sinful can become sin whenever (1) they are not of faith (i.e. doubtful) and (2) whenever they cause another to sin. Therefore, Christian liberty is not a right. Paul warns against using our liberty as a covering for our sins for all sin is of the heart although expressed in action. Even right things can be done sinfully from the heart. To demand the right to do certain things regardless of the affect upon others is sin in violation of the Law of Christ (i.e. Law of Love).

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by David Mark:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
Your serve!

I was drawing from Paul's example of eating meat sacrificed to idols. I should have mentioned that (I'm sorry). I didn't mean someone who is not a vegetarian.

I hope that will satisfy your competition with me. However, if you send a polite volley over the net again, I will oblige you with a polite return volley.

Dave. </font>[/QUOTE]If you believe eating meat sacrificed to idols is sinful, then why shouldn't you try to teach me the same since you would have my best interest at heart? The worst thing that you could do is let me proceed in what you consider error out of some false sense of tolerance. That would be unloving. Love would desire my best interest and my best interests, according to your convictions, would be for me not to eat meat. Please explain.

 

[David Mark]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
If you believe eating meat sacrificed to idols is sinful, then why shouldn't you try to teach me the same since you would have my best interest at heart? The worst thing that you could do is let me proceed in what you consider error out of some false sense of tolerance. That would be unloving. Love would desire my best interest and my best interests, according to your convictions, would be for me not to eat meat. Please explain.

Because in reality I see no scriptural support that eating meat sacrificed to an idol is a sin. Therefore, I will never try to teach you such a thing nor will I force you to change your mind if you are struggling over whether it is a sin or not.

This also goes for probably a million or more things that aren't generally profitable for a believer to do but are not sins. If I do something that is generally not profitable for me, it does not mean that it is a sin if I do it. Honestly, I don't like doing unprofitable things, so I refrain from a lot of stuff that other people do not refrain from doing. That in no way means they are sinning.

There are things I know are outright sins. The scriptures are crystal clear on those things. Those are the things I must not do and you must not do either.

Dave.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Never seen a legalist that didn't immediately bristle at the practical definition and application of legalism to today.

Legalism is a NT term to describe people trying to earn God's grace through works. (Think: keeping the Law).

Legalism today has NOT changed. There still are many who do so.

But the legalists of Paul's day were unsaved Jews trying to earn God's grace by following a strict code of conduct.

Today, many legalists are SAVED, but still trying to earn God's grace by following their own code of conduct.

THEY ARE JUST AS MUCH "LEGALISTS" AS WERE THE FIRST CENTURY JEWS.

 

[justdan]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by justdan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:

1. Do you have a right to do something that is not wrong of itself even though it causes a another to err or sin?
2. How does GRACE cover wilful sin? Is there a penalty? (HINT: What about chastening and loss of reward?)
3. Please explain exactly what a Spirit-filled, holy life is?
4. If you are not talking about the convictions and standards held by another, whom you call a legalist, what are you talking about?
5. What are the rights that Christian liberty give to you? Please support with chapter and verse.
6. How is your action affected by it's impact upon another?

</font>[/QUOTE]1 Yes, 1 Cor.10:23&24 but with rights come responsibilities.
2. Rom.5:8-21, is how grace covers sin,and of course there are consequences for sin on this earth.
3. Rom.6 ( Paul explained it better than I could!)
4. Someone who tries to impose there preferences on others.
5. 1 Cor. 8,9,and 10 teach the principal
6. I am not sure what you are asking

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]You are correct in that these passages address these issues but my mind is boggled that you cannot see the opposite side of the coin as well. Things that are not specifically sinful can become sin whenever (1) they are not of faith (i.e. doubtful) and (2) whenever they cause another to sin. Therefore, Christian liberty is not a right. Paul warns against using our liberty as a covering for our sins for all sin is of the heart although expressed in action. Even right things can be done sinfully from the heart. To demand the right to do certain things regardless of the affect upon others is sin in violation of the Law of Christ (i.e. Law of Love). [/QB][/QUOTE]

Umm, If you read my posts on this thread I dont see why you think I dissagree with this. I said our liberty had to be tempered with love for weaker Christians. I too believe it is wrong to cause a weaker brother to sin. I never said that was legalism. Maybe I didnt say it well but what I was trying to say is that it is legalistic when a "stronger Christan" trys to limit your liberty. That is very diffrent from what Paul is teaching about a person limiting there own liberty out of love!

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Never seen a legalist that didn't immediately bristle at the practical definition and application of legalism to today.

Legalism is a NT term to describe people trying to earn God's grace through works. (Think: keeping the Law).

Legalism today has NOT changed. There still are many who do so.

But the legalists of Paul's day were unsaved Jews trying to earn God's grace by following a strict code of conduct.

Today, many legalists are SAVED, but still trying to earn God's grace by following their own code of conduct.

THEY ARE JUST AS MUCH "LEGALISTS" AS WERE THE FIRST CENTURY JEWS.

Dr. Bob, your definition is essentially correct. However, I take issue with your applications.

Firstly, all NT legalists were not unsaved Jews. Some were saved Jews since Paul specifically addresses some of the Galatians who followed this heresy to retain their salvation.

Secondly, those who deny self and forego fleshly desire to serve and please God out of genuine love are not properly called legalists. They are not trying to merit God’s grace because they do have a clear understanding of grace. However, you will remember that the Law itself is established on love—love of God and love for others as Christ said.

A legalist is not someone who has stronger convictions regarding certain behaviors than you do.

 

[Elijah]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
[
A legalist is not someone who has stronger convictions regarding certain behaviors than you do. [/QB]

I agree with you to a point. But I personally know people who take their personall convictions on such things as what a person wears to church, or their hair length (or lack of when pertaining to women) to a form of legalism.

 

[Precepts]

Is it not legalism to accuse another of being legalistic? To the degree of imposing a "law" of course it is.

I'm afraid the accusation towards another is often just another tangent and the device used in the legalistic manner as well. We tend to use our liberty as a cloak for maliciousness if we're not careful. It's not that one has their law while others have theirs, it's a matter of liberty to have unity in the Body of Christ so that we may worship together and provoke one another to good works and thereby glorify our Father which is in Heaven.

Just as much it is leaglism for me to require you to have the same mode of dress I prefer, it is just as legalistic for you to call me full of legalism for advisng you to do so. It is nothing more than a tangle of words that flares up into more and more ungodliness as those exert their opinions over the others opinions. Paul dealt rather well with the matter in I and II Corinthians, too bad so many of us weren't listening, myself included.

I don't know how well Warren Wiersbe is received in BB, but he does have a wonderful booklet entitled "Be Free". It's a good objectional view towards the aspect of legalism.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
A legalist is not someone who has stronger convictions regarding certain behaviors than you do.

There you go. Used the word "stronger", implying that my convictions are "weaker".

If we judged like that, anything short of Amish would be "weaker".

I have only scorn for those who look at my wearing short-sleeved shirts as being a "weaker standard" than their wearing long-sleeved shirts.

DIFFERENT standards, not "higher" or "lower". Okay?

 

[donnA]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Never seen a legalist that didn't immediately bristle at the practical definition and application of legalism to today.

Legalism is a NT term to describe people trying to earn God's grace through works. (Think: keeping the Law).

Legalism today has NOT changed. There still are many who do so.

But the legalists of Paul's day were unsaved Jews trying to earn God's grace by following a strict code of conduct.

Today, many legalists are SAVED, but still trying to earn God's grace by following their own code of conduct.

THEY ARE JUST AS MUCH "LEGALISTS" AS WERE THE FIRST CENTURY JEWS.

I love this post Dr. Bob.

 

[Precepts]

I have only scorn for those who look at my wearing short-sleeved shirts as being a "weaker standard" than their wearing long-sleeved shirts.[/quote} I'll just look at you as being more lazy than some, not wanting to have to roll up your sleeves, but then that could be a compliment as well, I too, am smart enough to wear short sleeves in hot weather.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Precepts - I have preached at many non-baptist churches, colleges, camps, etc. Nazarene in Arizona asked me to wear long sleeves and NOT roll them up.

IT WAS HOT. They looked at me as a "weaker brother" but I looked at them as CRAZY!

 

[LadyEagle]

Today, many legalists are SAVED, but still trying to earn God's grace by following their own code of conduct.

THEY ARE JUST AS MUCH "LEGALISTS" AS WERE THE FIRST CENTURY JEWS.

Very true. And, one can be a "legalist" and not even be born again. Sadly, some people don't seem to know the difference.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
A legalist is not someone who has stronger convictions regarding certain behaviors than you do.

There you go. Used the word "stronger", implying that my convictions are "weaker".

If we judged like that, anything short of Amish would be "weaker".

I have only scorn for those who look at my wearing short-sleeved shirts as being a "weaker standard" than their wearing long-sleeved shirts.

DIFFERENT standards, not "higher" or "lower". Okay?

</font>[/QUOTE]Okay, Dr. Bob, I stand by my word choice. Stronger and weaker refer not to good or bad and higher or lower, but to the strength or force. It has to do with the strength or binding force of the convictions. Stronger convictions are more binding or restrictive, if you please. Weaker, on the other hand, is looser or less binding. Everyone, unless you are completely lawless, has some "thou shalt nots" in his life. It is only a question of degree in prohibition. Therefore, stronger and weaker are perfectly good descriptors. Your turn.

 

[Dr. Bob]

But who would need/desire "stronger, more restrictive" standards? Someone who is weak and cannot live a godly life without them.

Thus (using your term) a "stronger" standard person is a WEAKER brother.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Precepts - I have preached at many non-baptist churches, colleges, camps, etc. Nazarene in Arizona asked me to wear long sleeves and NOT roll them up.

IT WAS HOT. They looked at me as a "weaker brother" but I looked at them as CRAZY!

Doesn't that remind you a little of hell? When I pastored in AZ near Yuma I asked the church to add another air conditioner to the sanctuary because during the summer in the second service it would get up to ninety degrees in the building. I would be ringing wet when I was done preaching. Their response was that I should have seen what they had years ago.

 

[gb93433]

Many claim to be saved by grace through faith but live under legalism.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
But who would need/desire "stronger, more restrictive" standards? Someone who is weak and cannot live a godly life without them.

Thus (using your term) a "stronger" standard person is a WEAKER brother.

OH, NO, DR. BOB! Quite the contrary, this is precisely the most spiritually mature brother who is controlled by his passion, love, and zeal for pleasing God in denying self and fleshly lusts in order to edify others and glorify God.

For instance, let’s suppose that moderately drinking alcoholic beverages is not sinful per se. Now, I may be able to drink moderately without drunkenness and not commit a sinful act myself. However, I realize that many will not be able to handle moderate drinking and will become drunken. Therefore, I set the standard of totally abstaining from alcohol as an example and a hedge for my brother who may fall into drunkenness. Desiring to keep others from falling into the Biblically denounced sin of drunkenness, I teach others to abstain as well. This is not motivated by self-interest, gaining ascendancy over another, or a means of attaining salvation but it is solely a conviction born of compassion for my brother and love for my Lord. How dare you call me a legalist!

The real legalist is one who adheres to the letter of the law while violating the spirit of the law. In fact, we can effectively argue that the libertine, who says I can do it if it ain’t specifically forbidden in the Bible and covers his selfish desires with the disguise of “Christian liberty,” is the true legalist. He will obey the letter (i.e. that which is specifically forbidden) but denies the spirit of the Law of Christ, the Law of Love.

So, who is the legalist?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Many claim to be saved by grace through faith but live under legalism.

So, how's that? What do you think legalism is?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
But who would need/desire "stronger, more restrictive" standards? Someone who is weak and cannot live a godly life without them.

Thus (using your term) a "stronger" standard person is a WEAKER brother.

Dr. Bob, I believe that you are confusing the number and strength of the standards with the application of the standards--whether from within or without. When one chooses to exercise kindness or forgiveness, this is a standard to achieve. Hopefully, the spiritual Christian will have many of these positive standards that curb and replace his natural human lusts (desires in the Biblical sense).

However, the mature Christian, who still possesses the flesh and its attendant lusts, there is a constant warfare of flesh and Spirit. Therefore, a godly life is achieved by a repression of the flesh and control by the Spirit (cf. Ephesians 5). Your post could be construed as indicating that the flesh and its lusts are eradicated in the mature believer. Not true.