There have been some good definitions of legalism so far. But I have to agree with Rufus. Many people are deemed legalists because they promote holiness. If a preacher says we need to abstain from worldliness, that's fine. But if he actually identifies wordliness and how one can spot it, he will be called a legalist. If he speaks out against practices that are worldly (smoking, movies, etc) people will think he is trying to impose his own standard of holiness to others.
Legalism
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by gerald285, Aug 21, 2007.
Page 2 of 3
-
-
(I do not smoke, so don't bother with the "he's only defending it so he can do it without guilt" argument.)
Movies are slightly different, because they MAY entice lusts the Bible specifically condemns. So I'm avoiding the issue of movies. They're harder to argue about, pro or con. -
-
-
that's awesome "....Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves." Rom 14:22 -
"To ourselves this tobacco pest is a daily martyrdom, and we could earnestly wish that every Christian teacher, at all events, felt no desire to indulge in a habit... which is unquestionably most fearfully destructive both to the bodies and souls of tens of thousands of our young men." - James Clarke (friend of Spurgeon)
"Mr. Spurgeon, the greatest preacher in the world, smokes.' Since then, if report speaks true, this 'greatest preacher' has abandoned his cigar, not, as we wish he had done years ago, from religious principle, but because he was driven to it by its injurious influence upon his health." - Unnamed Clergyman
The following is an excerpt from a letter that is a most worthy read. I encourage reading the whole response (it was in response to the famous Pentecost vs Spurgeon sermon) by clicking the link at the end.
"The crusade against tobacco is conducted on precisely the same principles as the crusade against strong drink; and the arguments by which we advocate the one are almost identical with those by which we advocate the other.
"Pharisees," are we? Well, we are in good company. We follow that arch-Pharisee who said,
"If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth [I Cor. 8:13];"
and
"It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything [is it possible that the word "anything" can include "a good cigar"?] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak [Rom. 14:21]."
We know tobacco is a stumbling-block, and an offence, and a cause of weakness to multitudes of our brethren—brethren in the Church of Christ—brethren in the bonds of a common humanity—and so we practise what "Pharisee" Paul teaches, and sacrifice personal indulgence, lest it should be a snare to others. We think we have also a Higher Authority and a Greater Example—even the authority and example of Him who "pleased not Himself [Rom. 15:3]."
May I, without intentional impertinence, illustrate this? Two men stand side-by-side on the platform of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, the one a "Pharisee," the other—Mr. Spurgeon. One describes his pilgrimage along the steep rough path of self-denial, and tells us how he "took his cigar-box before the Lord, and cried for help." The other prefers the easier, smoother, smokier path of self-indulgence, holds fast to the cigar-box, and declares his intention to smoke a good cigar before going to bed. WHICH OF THESE LOOKS MOST LIKE CHRIST? Which would it be to the advantage of the young men, who heard both, to follow?" - WM Hutchings -
Yours truly,
C. H. SPURGEON. -
"Or step into the conference hall of the infidel where he blasphemes your Maker's name; or sit in the theater where lustful and immoral plays are acted out, and from all these haunts of vice there comes the voice, “Minister, woe is to you if you do not preach the gospel.” - C.H. Spurgeon
Was not Spurgeon thus, a "legalist" regarding the sins he had no affections for? -
RB,
I love Spurgeon, but maybe he was wrong on this one. He wasn't infallible, you know. And sometimes our "consciences" are not the most reliable. -
-
-
-
-
IMHO, I think the reason legalism is known as negative is because the legalists don't seem to understand that the world will only get worse. And that's ok, it's gods plan. :) Don't dwell upon it.
When preaching, legalists spend more time talking about what the worldly people are doing wrong than talking of scripture verses. Everyone ought to listen to their Pastors sermons closely to see if this is what is happening.
Often they talk of how they don't get along with, or agree with their their family members such as inlaws/parents. These personal issues aren't usually apparent in other Pastors sermons. They often over -use the term "train the kids up" to be this or that but for whatever reason, they give excuses why they can't achieve the same standard because they are tainted due to their lousy parents. This is not scriptual.
Legalists usually have very wordly backgrounds. Despite this,they are very unforgiving when others commit the same sins. They are FULL of self-righteousness & Pride. They often talk of "the lost" It's an us against them attitude. And they decide who is the "them", not God.
IMHO, it's the level of obsession in what others are doing wrong, and the personal attacks that usually gives legalists a bad name. Holding to standards doesn't make one a legalist. -
-
-
-
-
Friend, you said this to me "since Spurgeon is your man that encourages you to justify your sin"
What sin are you accusing me of and what Scripture are you basing it on? Perhaps I am in sin...my concience is clear, but seeing that you have judged it sin I want to be rebuked and corrected by God. So please, provide Scripture that teaches me:
1. Cigar smoking is a sin.
2. Drinking alcholic drinks are sin, even when a person doesn't get intoxicated. -
deleted post
Page 2 of 3