An Opposite use of legalism?

C4K, I'll have to disagree with you on this one. The Bible is not a list of Do’s and Don’t’s that you challenge us to provide. It teaches principles to be applied in daily living. You cannot shift to a supposedly higher spiritual plane and say that no one has any Biblical reasons for holding the above convictions. No, you may not agree with their reasons but one can find Biblical principles that could be applied.

1. One should not go to the movie theater because of testimony’s sake and the support of an ungodly industry. Of course, this would equally well apply to Blockbuster.
2. Banning all secular music is a little harder and I really don’t know anyone who would say this. Some people may prefer all Christian but I don’t know anyone who calls all secular music sin. It sounds like a straw man to me.
3. Dancing appeals to the flesh and promotes lust and immoral thoughts.
4. The pants issue has to do with providing a distinction between the sexes as well as modesty in the case of tight, form-fitting pants.

However, the big thing is the matter of personal convictions and conscience. Some people, due to their upbringing or whatever, have genuine doubts about the aforementioned activities. Regardless, I think that I can prove from Scripture that it is sinful if they go against their conscience. Furthermore, there is a strong Scriptural warning to us that we do not cause our brother or sister to offend (i.e. sin) by going against his or her conscience. The point is that practicing the preceding so-called legalisms is many times motivated by a regenerate heart desirous of pleasing the Lord.

Finally, I will say that everyone—I mean everyone—has many extra-Biblical convictions. Now, our convictions are all different. The rub is that we try to force our own views on others while disparaging their convictions that we don’t hold.

C4K, you are seasoned enough to know that everything you and I believe cannot be spouted chapter and verse. We make applications from principles. Not all of us will agree on the principles much less the applications. So, let’s not berate others as legalists because they are more restrictive than our own beliefs. IMHO, legalism has totally lost all usefulness and meaning through overuse and abuse.

 

Hi thjplgvp, (how do you pronounce that?),

Thanks for that thoughtful post. I took my question from Collossians 2:20-23 (emphasis mine):

I think Paul raises a great point here, that strict adherance to rules does not stop indulgence of the flesh. I take this to mean that even if we avoid "the world's" music and such we have not addressed the real problem yet. I guess what bothers me is when people act (and preach) as if not doing certain things that "the world" does is the essence of righteousness, when the Bible clearly states that it is not even a beginning of righteousness.

So, we have a problem. Hebrews 13:17 says (along with other passages) that we are to obey our leaders, and Colossians 2:16 says that we should "let no one pass judgment on [us] in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath". So if our leaders pass judgment on us in these areas what are we to do?

 

Regulations

Good morning brother.

I believe the answer to your question goes back to Colossians 2:14 'Blotting out the hand writing of the ordinances against us' referencing that in Christ all the law had been fulfilled and therefore the law was not to be used as a guide to salvation. The Colossian believers had fallen back by taking to themselves the obedience of the law including circumcision and observance the Jewish days of special recognition. The import of this was that they had then turned to worshipping angels as a form of higher enlightenment. Therefore in their gnostic beliefs they were not becoming more free in Christ but more bound by embracing elements of salvation and enlightenment that were leading them toward bondage.

In regards to your post I would agree with you that if my obedience is tied to my salvation or spirituallity then I am not to embrace obedience to my pastor as of form of either. But from a wisdom and caution aspect I would believe it wise to listen to pastoral warnings for they are for my own good.

Thanks for your kind response.

thjplgvp (Phillipians 4:8)

 

That was my point, we may have opinions about standards. We may have extra-biblical preferences. I do have problems with dance (in general - many folk dances do not inspire lust in any regard), I do not choose to go the cinema as a rule, my wife does not wear trousers. However, there is not a clear Bible basis for such choices. I base them on applying the principles of God's word. I am not bothered when someone asks me for Bible reasons - I hope they do. I think I have Bible support to make such a choice, but don't think I can compel others to do the same. It is not legalistic for someone to say -"If its not in the Bible I am not going to do it." I do not berate anyone as a "legalist" if they hold different standards than I do - only if they try to force their preferences on me.

I have encountered a group who I consider legalistic in another regard. I was once told that unless we had dance in our worship service we were not truly worshipping God - that too is a legalistic requirement.

 

Hi Chris,

One bad thing about the internet is that I cannot see you, and you cannot see me. I believe that if we could sit down together and talk that we would agree on much more than we disagree on.

I am not saying that "we shouldn't be warned or bother to try" to avoid sin. I am really not sure where that came from. What I am against is making up sins and preaching against those. For example, if it is true that "Christians keep their hair short and their pants long" then I am in trouble. My hair is short, I think, but maybe not as short as yours. Who determines what "short" is, and how short is short enough? My pants sometimes only go down to my knees and other times go all the way down. If "Christians don't wear shorts" then am I only occasionally a Christian, or never, or what? I don't know how to interpret a statement like that except that my salvation is being questioned because of what I am wearing.

This is the kind of thing that I used to hear from the pulpit, and not just about hair and clothes but about many other topics - music, food, drink, and many others. This is what I object to.

 

Well, I thought so too, but then you came up with that line about not wanting to try to avoid sin, and I guess I still don't know where that came from. I thought maybe you didn't hear it right the first time. I don't want to sin, never said I did. I want to be warned about sin, never said I didn't. I guess I am confused.

 

Bible convictions

Okay, C4K, we’re on the same page; we just need to fill some of the gaps. There is the matter of freedom of association. We can choose, which is proper, to associate with folks who believe like we do. A church, for example, may choose not to use women who wear pants as Sunday School teachers if the church teaches and believes that pants are immodest and do not properly differentiate between the sexes. Any woman, who disagrees and feels at liberty to wear slacks, is free to leave the church and seek fellowship elsewhere.

Separation, which has been much maligned, is a good positive thing. It allows people who hold things in common to associate together in peace. Unity and peace are built on things in common, not diversity. They have a mutually shared basis for fellowship and communion together. It is virtually impossible to maintain God-honoring peace whenever people of different convictions are closely grouped together. Either one is true and contends for his convictions or he compromises his convictions and tolerates what he does not believe. (Don’t take this too far—I know the confrontation between Peter and Paul.)

I know many good, godly people who have a conviction against movie-going, social dancing, and pants as a woman’s attire. They attend churches where these beliefs are taught and practiced. They sincerely believe their convictions are based on Biblical principles. Clearly, they would be sinning against their own consciences if they went to movies, danced or the women wore pants. The Bible is specific and clear; whatever is not of faith is sin.

What bugs me is the crowd that feels it has liberty to do these things. Well, fine! That is between them and the Lord. But, they are not content to leave others alone with their own convictions. Fearing others may be trying to claim some kind of spiritual ascendancy, the soul liberty folks must disparage, ridicule and put down the people with more stringent convictions. IMHO, this is hypocrisy because they demand for themselves what they will not allow others. Let them go and practice their convictions in peace.