Legalism

[christianyouth]

Legalism, what is it? There seems to be some confusion as to what it is. What constitutes legalism? I believe that because of the lack of understanding of what legalism is that most who claim to be fundamentalists are actually moderates or liberals and do not know it. So what is legalism?

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.

 

[npetreley]

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.

It depends upon how he "speaks out against smoking, etc." doesn't it? If he's simply saying he believes smoking is a waste of money, unhealthy, and an overall bad influence, then that's not legalism. If he says smoking is sinful, that's legalism. If he says that people who smoke are not saved, that's BIG TIME legalism.

(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.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

It depends upon how he "speaks out against smoking, etc." doesn't it? If he's simply saying he believes smoking is a waste of money, unhealthy, and an overall bad influence, then that's not legalism. If he says smoking is sinful, that's legalism. If he says that people who smoke are not saved, that's BIG TIME legalism.

(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.

I smoke cigars from tiem to time, so all the legalists take their best shot. And I enjoy a nice cold beer from time to time as well. neener neener neener

 

[npetreley]

I smoke cigars from tiem to time, so all the legalists take their best shot. And I enjoy a nice cold beer from time to time as well. neener neener neener

Spurgeon also enjoyed cigars - one every night, I think. Here's one of my favorite stories...

While Mr. Spurgeon was living at Nightingale Lane, Clapham, an excursion was one day organised by one of the young men's classes at the Tabernacle. The brake with the excursionists was to call for the President on their way to mid-Surrey.
It was a beautiful early morning, and the men arrived in high spirits, pipes and cigars alight, and looking forward to a day of unrestrained enjoyment. Mr. Spurgeon was ready waiting at the gate. He jumped up to the box-seat reserved for him, and looking round with an expression of astonishment, exclaimed: "What, gentlemen! Are you not ashamed to be smoking so early?"
Here was a damper! Dismay was on every face. Pipes and cigars one by one failed and dropped out of sight.
When all had disappeared, out came the President's cigar-case. He lit up and smoked away serenely.
The men looked at him astonished. "I thought you said you objected to smoking, Mr. Spurgeon?" one ventured.
"Oh no, I did not say I objected. I asked if they were not ashamed, and it appears they were, for they have all put their pipes away."
Amid laughter the pipes reappeared, and with puffs of smoke the party went on merrily.

http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/cigars.htm

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Spurgeon also enjoyed cigars - one every night, I think. Here's one of my favorite stories...



http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/cigars.htm

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

that's awesome "....Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves." Rom 14:22

 

[Rufus_1611]

Spurgeon also enjoyed cigars - one every night, I think. Here's one of my favorite stories...



http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/cigars.htm

"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​

 

[ReformedBaptist]

"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​

I am most sorry that prominence has been given to what seems to me so small a matter—and the last thing in my thoughts would have been the mention of it from the pulpit; but I was placed in such a position that I must either by my silence plead guilty to living in sin, or else bring down upon my unfortunate self the fierce rebukes of the anti-tobacco advocates by speaking out honestly. I chose the latter; and although I am now the target for these worthy brethren, I would sooner endure their severest censures than sneakingly do what I could not justify, and earn immunity from their criticism by tamely submitting to be charged with sin in an action which my conscience allows.

Yours truly,

C. H. SPURGEON.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Spurgeon also enjoyed cigars - one every night, I think. Here's one of my favorite stories...



http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/cigars.htm

Spurgeon was well known for his right criticism of theater attendance.

"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?

 

[Andy T.]

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.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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.

Sure, both he and I could be wrong. I open to the Scriptures correction on drinking, but not getting drunk, and cigar smoking.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Spurgeon was well known for his right criticism of theater attendance.

"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?

No, because I think that's a weak def of legalism.

 

[Rufus_1611]

No, because I think that's a weak def of legalism.

Well, let's use his term then. He called those that preached against his smoking "pharisees", how was his smoking different from someone going to the theater? Was he a pharisee in speaking against the theater? Were those that preached against smoking and alcohol pharisees?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well, let's use his term then. He called those that preached against his smoking "pharisees", how was his smoking different from someone going to the theater? Was he a pharisee in speaking against the theater? Were those that preached against smoking and alcohol pharisees?

The subject is legalism, what is it. I provided two good definations in an earlier post.

 

[Joe]

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.

 

[Rufus_1611]

The subject is legalism, what is it. I provided two good definations in an earlier post.

Yes you did, and I appreciated your definitions. You and npetreley went on the smoking, drinking and Spurgeon kick so I followed along. Typically the invective of "pharisee" and "legalist" go hand and hand and since Spurgeon is your man that encourages you to justify your sin, I thought we could use him to demonstrate his obvious contradicting stances on similar issues. However, if you desire to move on, I can dig it.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Yes you did, and I appreciated your definitions. You and npetreley went on the smoking, drinking and Spurgeon kick so I followed along. Typically the invective of "pharisee" and "legalist" go hand and hand and since Spurgeon is your man that encourages you to justify your sin, I thought we could use him to demonstrate his obvious contradicting stances on similar issues. However, if you desire to move on, I can dig it.

You have now accused me of sin. This is the job of Holy Scripture. Please provide some.

 

[Rufus_1611]

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 god plan. Don't dwell upon it.

We have no fate but what we make. It doesn't have to get worse, it just does because Christians cease being salt and they get soft on sin.

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.

Give me a couple folks who you define as being legalists and I'll take a listen.

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.

If other pastors aren't preaching against sin then they are apt to get along quite well with the world.

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.

Train up the child in the way he should go is scriptural. Are you saying they don't use scripture, they do use scripture or you just don't know scripture when you hear it?

Legalists usually have very wordly backgrounds.

That's why you must be born-again. What saved Christian came out of something other than a worldly background?

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.

God has given me the discernment to know that the "lost" are not "us". Do you believe the lost is part of your group?

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.

Sin is personal and I suspect when the carnal hear someone preaching against sin they personalize and consider it to be a personal attack even though it is an attack against sin.

 

[Rufus_1611]

You have now accused me of sin. This is the job of Holy Scripture. Please provide some.

The subject is legalism, what is it?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The subject is legalism, what is it?

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.

 

[Joe]

deleted post