Legalism

My responce to PASTOR MHG was in regard to him stating that it was wrong for men to be BARE CHESTED. I do not find that in any of the verses he qouted. He is right when he said he got dressed and went back into the water. I did miss that sorry. Didn't realize Jesus was in the water already, now I get it.

Maybe the reason why Peter did that is he really was COMPLETELY NAKED not just from the waste up and didn't want to meet the Lord totally naked. Makes sense to me that is what happened.

I prefer the interpretation of whoever it was who thought that Peter just expected to walk on water.

Originally posted by Helen:
Petrel, When Muslims move to America, they know that they are going to be seeing a cultural norm different from what they are used to. Still, I will do what I can not to offend them if they are neighbors. However, I think being open and friendly to people like the mailman would be a witness to freedom in Christ and appreciation of people as His creatures. Mostly your post is mockery, but I thought I would respond to that part of it anyway. As for the rest, I plead Psalm 1:1 and Proberbs 9:7-8.

Click to expand...

No, actually, I was being completely serious. A true "fundamentalist" Muslim follows a strict set of rules. Among these is the restriction of travel for women, the requirement that women be accompanied by a male chaperone, and strict separation between the sexes. A true "fundamentalist" Muslim man would not speak to you (his wife might) and would think very badly of your character if he saw you talking to another man.

For some information on what exactly is permitted or forbidden in moderate to strict Islam, you can look up the Ask the Imam site. I'm not going to put the link to it here because it might be considered censorable.

blackbird, I agree with your warning. However, I think that something much more dangerous is going on. That is the "graying" of Christianity. That which is clearly white is no longer white but varying shades of gray. That which is black is no longer black but merely a lighter shade with many specks of white.

Bro. Artimaeus---speaking of grey areas--there is a judgment/prophecy given by the Prophet Jeremiah that gives us a sound picture of what we see through today!

Jeremiah 8:12, "Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? Na, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore, they shall fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down saith the Lord."

We live among people who are not ashamed---and people who cannot blush!

Thanks, Blackbird. This thread was supposed to be about legalism, not about what John's wife was wearing. I believe they have not been married that long and I appreciate his attitude where she is concerned!

To get back to the point I started with, asking for modesty (the covering of nakedness as well as modest demeanor), ethical and wholesome behavior, decent language, etc. is not legalistic. Asking people do refrain from doing things which are offensive to others (who are not paranoid etc.) or might tempt them to unwholesome thoughts or activities is not legalistic.

Legalism involves the imposing of man-made laws in any of these areas which demand you obey by doing what you are told to do, wear what you are told to wear, say what you are told to say, etc.

I think what is being argued about here is the gap between being modest and exactly what modesty means, the gap between ethical behavior and exactly what ethical means, etc.

Personally, I'd rather be in error on the side of conservativism and not have to apologize for anything -- at least not have to apologize very often! Personally, I want to live a life that reflects Christ -- not just His love, but His holiness, too, if that doesn't sound too pretentious. I'm not talking about 'holier than thou' but just letting Christ be what I reflect in my manner of going and talking.

I don't want to be an embarrassment to my Lord.

2 Timothy 2:3-4 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.
--The better the soldier, the more separated he is from the world.
The better the soldier, the more loyal he is to his commander-in-chief.
The better the soldier, the more concerned he is with pleasing his commander, rather than pleasing the world.
To the outside world the soldier lives in a legalistic world. All he does is follows orders. So regulated is his world that if a private steps out of line, he finds himself either in the kitchen scrubbing potatoes or in the bathroom scrubbing the toilets.
His life seems to be completely regulated by commands, orders, rules, regulations. Nothing could be more legalistic than the life of a soldier.

And yet the Scripture says:
2 Timothy 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

The world calls it legalism. The soldier doesn't. The only thing that a good soldier has on his mind is pleasing his commander-in-chief, and serving his nation. That is all that he wants to do. He counts it an honor to serve for his nation, even to die for his nation. This he will do, if called upon. This is not legalism; it is service, and it is pleasing, yea an honor to do so.

The world and carnal Christians as well look at others that live for the Lord, and say that they live legalistic lives. They call it legalism. But the flip side of the coin is holiness. Perhaps a person strives to dress modestly at all times because she believes that she lives a life that is more glorifying to the Lord that way. It is an issue of holiness. How close to the Lord are you willing to walk. How much of the world are you willing to give up? And so it is with many things. Drinking an alcoholic beverage--if it causes your brother to stumble? Paul said I won't eat meat (or food) as long as this world stand if it causes my brother to stumble. But carnal Christians today demand their "rights." Paul had no rights. He desired only to be holy.
He said:

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

I am crucified.--I am dead.
What rights do dead people have?

A good soldier seeks only to please the one whom he serves. Who do you serve?
DHK

Amen, DHK, and thank you.

DHK,

Very good! I too thank you.

Richard

I asked questions about what she was wearing, and I did so because from a biblical standpoint the issues are respect for God and modesty.

Modesty and respect vary depending upon the circumstances. If this was a "swim party" billed as a church service - it is one thing. If it is a church service billed as a church service - it is another thing.

Given it might have been a swim party billed as a church service, there are still certain things to consider. First - The assumption that swim attire is immodest might not be a correct assumption for some people, as it is possible to purchase combinations of suits and cover-ups that can be considered modest. However, defending the concept that swim attire is proper in a church setting requires considering just how varied swim attire can be, and a great deal of swim attire is geared, solely, to be enticing.

I felt it was important to realize that while John V was picturing his own wife when he issued his defense, there is a much broader issue involved and that issue, applied to people other than John's own wife, might paint a very different picture.

DHK,

Well said.

AMEN and AMEN!

Max

Hows this for a hypothetical situation.

The message at church is dealing with modesty and dress, stating his belief that women should wear dresses and men should have short hair. The Pastor notices a couple visiting the church today. The lady is wear jeans and a t-shirt the man has hair down to the middle of his back. After the service the Pastor approaches the couple and welcomes them to the church. He invites them back and tells both that they might enjoy the ladies bible study on Monday night and the Men's on Tuesday.

Now the same situation, but after the service the Pastor tells the couple that unless they dress and groom themselves as he deems appropriate then they are not welcome to participate in any church activities other than sitting in the service.

Which of these is legalistic? Obviously it is the second, as the Pastor is thinks their dress is more important than getting this couple involved where they can hear the Word.

Bill

If they are both dressed modestly, be it jeans, t-shirts or whatever, and, for the sake of general courtesy (although not necessary....) they haven't forgotten to bathe or shower within the last month, what's the hassle?

DHK very good example and well put.

I agree but I have also seen that the problem lies not so much on a Christian trying to live a Godly Holy seperate life. That is fine and dandy with me. I myself have lived that life, more times than not. Anyway I've seen more times than not, these Christians who LOOK DOWN on those who do not live up to their standards. I have a huge problem with that. They become judgmental.

1 Cor. 13 is the LOVE chapter. As Christians LOVE should be our motivating factor in ALL things. Legalism is when anyone, Pastor or layman imposses his standards on others.

It is not wrong for a Church to have standards, just like any business or schools would. But it is wrong to say one is not Godly and not fit for service if one does not live up to those same standards. This is what I have seen in certain churches. Church leaders would do better to lead by example.

You know something I have noticed, RightfromWrong? That those who are the closest to Christ are the most humble. They are so very, very aware of their own dependance on Him and what they are without Him. Not so coincidently, they are also the ones whose lives reflect Him in their quiet holiness and respect and honor. You just can't fake that stuff. Real Christ-likeness is something that sort of glows out of a person, and they don't even know it.

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Was the "church" on the "beach" a "swim party?"

Click to expand...

More legalism. You imply in your post that it wasn't "real" church. I don't appreciate your pharisaical attitude towards me. It's quite unchristian.

Would you have gone from that service to a court of law or a beach wedding or a beach memorial service and felt properly clothed?

Click to expand...

Is that a scriptural requirement?

Had the swim suit been a string-bikini would you feel it was appropriate?

Click to expand...

There was one person with a bikini top and a sarong-type wrap. Nothing inappropriate in that setting.

Was breast clevage easily visible?

Click to expand...

Is absence of visible cleavage a scriptural mandate? To answer your question, I saw no dirty pillows.

Now, let's kindly get back to the issue of legalism. There was nothing immoral, unscriptural, immodest, sexual, or disrespectful to the Lord at the beachside service I attended. Nothing whatsoever. In that setting, the attire was not inappropriate. In another setting, the same attire will likely be inappropriate. Legalism is when someone says that their view of appropriate attire must apply to all Christians everywhere, incuding the beachside service I attended.

There are folks who wear nice jeans to my church. I don't However, I wore shorts this past Sunday. Other might not. If I were in another church where more dressy attire were appropriate, I would dress in accordance with their custom.

It's legalistic to go to an Italian restaurant and complain that they don't serve dim sum.

[ August 19, 2005, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

The best soldier fighting for his fellow people not only obeys orders; he learns the whys and wherefores of command. The soldier of GOD knows that HIS C-in-C is all-wise and knows/notices EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE.

The soldier of man readies himself to take tactical command if necessary. So does the soldier of God. In every war, there are examples of common soldiers taking command of their unit when all its officers were incapacitated. Many a church has been led by a lay person after the unexpected loss of its pastor. One of the weaknesses of the Gremans in both world wars was their units' inability to take any initiative if they lost their officers.

A human army can even lose its C-in-C as the USA did when FDR died, but the army of GOD is assured that its C-in-C will ALWAYS be there for them, will always be in charge, and that HIS victory is guaranteed.

But He wants us to TAKE SOME INITIATIVE on our own! If you happen across the most-disgusting person you can think of, and he/she asks you for guidance to the Lord, you shouldn't be asking for God's permission to do so...we should be asking Him to HELP US properly witness to this person.

But it CAN be hard. I despise child molestors more than any other type pervert, and would like to see it punishable by DEATH. But several years ago, a police buddy called me and asked me to witness to a convicted molestor who was jailed locally while awaiting transport to the "big house". I was really torn, almost nauseated, as I had generally sought to distance myself as far as possible from such perverts. But the HOLY SPIRIT inspired me to PRAY FOR HIS STRENGTH AND GUIDANCE, while reminding me that JESUS died for that man as well as myself. By the Holy Spirit's help, I was able to look upon him as simply another lost person seeking the Lord, and through His power in shaping my speech, I was able to at least start me on the road to Christ. About 3 months later, I received word that this man had come to the Lord! Now, while I give full credit to the HOLY SPIRIT for his salvation, I realize He wanted ME to take the initiative to bring the Gospel to that man. Now, while I realize the Holy Spirit coulda done it all w/o my help, He had chosen ME for that job, and had I excused myself from it, I woulda been ashamed of myself the rest of my life.

As for legalism...if it cannot be PROVEN FROM SCRIPTURE, & not just GUESSED AT by men, I disregard all of it.

My word! Were we all born without common sense? Have we no mind to make our own decisions, no Holy Spirit to guide us individually? I'm really incredulous that this kind of thing even has to be discussed to such depths. Not only that, but I have the idea that you all believe basically the same thing, but because you express your ideas differently, everyone thinks the other person is wrong!

Now for a few thing that really jumped out at me from this thread. Why did God cloth Adam and Eve in the skins of an animal? Because "for without blood there is no remission of sin"! The skins were a symbol of the blood the animal had shed so that Adam and Eve could be right with the Lord. If God only wanted them covered He could just as easily of taught them how to weave, since leaves are obviously impractical. Modesty was secondary to the event as both were "covered" by leaves and had obviously seen each other naked.

The passage in Exodus also doesn't refer to the clothing worn by everyday people, but only to that clothing which was worn by the priestly order of Levite. It was designed with the occupation of being a priest in mind. Not designed for housewives or business executives.

As for wearing a bathing suit to church, I wouldn't wear one to a grocery store either! Bathing suits are made for wearing in a place where there is water to swim in(common sense here). Now if I were at the lake or beach in my bathing suit, and I ran up on a group of like dressed Christian that decided to do some worshipping at the beach, I'd join right in! Enjoy the fellowship!

Different clothing is made for different situations. I wouldn't let my son wear his dirt bike gear to church. It's not even a modesty issue as his gear covers him from head to toe. It's an issue of what is appropriate in what situation(that common sense thing again).

Therein lies the best definition of legalism I know: When one Christian attempts to place his views of appropriateness as the standard for all Christians as though they had no mind of their own and no Holy Spirit to guide them, and then calls it sin when others don't follow his standard.

My own father who taught me so much of the Bible when I was a child, was like this. Many, many times I was told that if I didn't dress, vote, think etc, the way he did that I'd never get anywhere in life. It didn't dawn on him until years later, that the same Holy Spirit who led him and gave him peace over his decisions also led me! It was as though he(dad) thought that he was supposed to be the conduit for the Holy Spirit in my life. Like I didn't recieve a direct line to God when I accepted Christ.

Folks, decisions like this have to be made by the individual according to their own situation in life. There is no black and white, only shades of gray that become a beautiful spectrum when covered by the blood of Christ. Let you eyes be on Him, let your thoughts be on what will glorify Him, these decisions won't be a problem.

Originally posted by Helen:
If they are both dressed modestly, be it jeans, t-shirts or whatever, and, for the sake of general courtesy (although not necessary....) they haven't forgotten to bathe or shower within the last month, what's the hassle?

Click to expand...

To me absolutely none. To others at churches I know quite a bit.

My examples were ment to show the difference between someone showing Christian Love and
someone being concerned with the superficial over the spiritual. I have no

problem with jeans and t-shirts. As a matter of fact that is a quite common mode of dress for Wed. and Sun nights at our church. At my old church Jeanne was "talked to" about wearing jeans as the she had been wearing exclusively dresses and skirts. The church thought she was "backsliding" by wearing jeans. It was simply a matter of her studying the issue in greater detail and finding dresses were not required by the Bible.

Bill

BB Bill writes:

...the man has hair down to the middle of his back. After the service...

Click to expand...

Or worse yet, DURING the service...

I've seen a highly legalistic pastor "call out" a visiting man [I was told later that the man was a visitor] with long hair- right in the middle of his sermon. This was in an IFB church I just happened to be visiting.

As this pastor was preaching, he noticed for the first time this visitor's hair. The man had it pulled back in a pony-tail, and I don't know if the man had turned his head to the side just enough for the pastor to notice it- or what exactly happened. Anyway, the pastor stopped his sermon and addressed the man, proceeding to scold him for his hair length- at which point the man got to his feet and walked out!

Saved or unsaved: who knows what this man's spiritual condition was? If he was not saved, I'm guessing his willingness to hear the Gospel was severely damaged that Sunday.

I didn't think we were really discussing "should we allow nonbelievers to dress certain ways." I thought the question being discussed was more along the lines of "how should a Christian dress when attending a worship service?"