Featured Anything 'Like' IFB?

Someone please help me understand the “church standards” thing. Can you give examples of requiring something, yet it not bein legalistic?

Trying to understand that frame of reference

TIA

 

Back in the day, all conservative churches were like this. CCM did not exist. All Biblical churches were against alcoholic beverages. Pastors and evangelists regularly preached against worldly entertainment such as movies. Before movies, preachers spoke against the theater. Famous missionary Hudson Taylor was even against reading novels, and forbade them when he took his first group of CIM missionaries to China.

Now I agree that these prohibitions do not bring revival, but it is necessary for the believer to "love not the world" as the Apostle John put it.

When did all of this change? Historically, when New Evangelicalism began in the 1950's, the New Evangelicals (Billy Graham and his fellow travelers) opposed the personal standards, called "personal separation," of the fundamentalists. The classic work against such standards is The Grace Awakening, by Chuck Swindoll. However, no revival occurred with the abandonment of personal standards. In fact, the evangelical world is worse off than ever.

 

That book by Chuck Swindoll though opened my eyes to what living by grace really means!

 

Antinomianism and grace are not synonymous.

 

I did not take from himn that he was teaching that cheap and easy grace, but hard! against legalism

 

I admit it's been a long time since I read it, but my impression of it was, "All rules are legalism." That's ridiculous. Every church has rules called their "constitution."

 

How about a church constitution? Every church has one, and they all require things. Here is a theological definition of legalism: "Legalism is a slavish following of the laws in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., p. 990). Simply having standards does not equal legalism. Legalism occurs if one thinks those standards make him righteous before God.

I have standards and so do you. My standards are not to make me righteous, but (1) to keep me out of temptation, and (2) to avoid offending others or causing them to stumble. What are yours for?

 

I think Chuck was speaking out against making our preferences and convictions as rules to apply towards all, as why can be against all alcohol, but don;t despise a brother who orders wine for dinner!
He would really see say KJVO as being legalism!

 

I think the crossing over line is when someone tells us that we must do as they do to stay right with God, but that area falls under our Christian Liberty!

 

The problem is that "Christian liberty" quite often crosses over into "license." A good theological position on personal separation is that as we draw closer to God, the need for secular pleasures decreases. If someone says, "I have the freedom to watch R rated movies," that "freedom" has a good chance of hurting his Christian testimony or distancing him from a thrice holy God. If on the other hand one seeks with all of his heart to "draw nigh to God," such secular and questionable pleasures will fall away naturally.

 

I do understand your position here, but still think Chuck was addressing the larger issue of legalism, as in we would be judging others saved due to their type of music, bibles, what they choose to eat or drink etc!

 

my former pastor would wear a suite and tie while on the riding lawn mower, and thought wearing blue jeans for that would be acceptable!

 

Not true at all. Independent is just that, Independent, especially from the SBC.

 

What does he mean by that?