Can you be...

[davidgeminden]

So what are the uncontested biblical theological definitions found in the Bible for the words legalism, legalistic and legalist? Are the words legalism, legalistic and legalist found in the Bible? It seems to me that the words legalism, legalistic and legalist are useless theological words to use if there are not any uncontested theological definitions found in the Bible for them. All ready there are several definitions legalism found in posts on this thread. Which one is the is the uncontested Biblical definition found in the Bible? Are we allowed to create any definition that seems right in our own eyes?


Is it this one?

Dr Caner's definition of a legalist: A Christian who thinks they are trying to get you to be more like God, when actually they are trying to get you to be more like themselves instead!

Our church secretary fits that definition to a tee.

I don't, and I am a fundamentalist.

Debbie Mc

Is it this one?

In the strictest sense, yes that is what legalism means, working for your salvation in addition to God's work of Grace. However, the more damning definition refers to the attitude that my opinion is God given so it is just as if it is scripture (no matter how I arrived at this opinion and how I erred in scriptural interpretation) and you have to live up to it or you cannot possibly be right with God or a follower of Christ. My standard determine your righteousness.

It is a way that immature spiritual leaders keep their people from growing up in grace and knowing the true freedom we have in Christ. Ultimately it is not about the betterment of fellow believers, legalism is about controlling as many as possible and making them act their way and not the way of the Spirit.

Is it this one?

Bro. Williams, maybe this will help you. Here is the commonly accepted definition of legalism I gave on page 1: “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” (Christian Theology, 2nd ed., by SBC theologian Millard Erickson, p. 990).

I'm pretty sure you don't believe in legalism by this definition--unless you are a Seventh Day Baptist, maybe. :smilewinkgrin: We can believe in Fundamentalist standards of dress, behavior, etc., without being legalists. Unfortunately, many non-Fundamentalist Christians have invented a new meaning for legalist: anyone who believes in personal separation.

Is it this one?

If we were to have to use a word for what fundamentalists are often accused of I think a better choice than legalism would be galatianism.

I think legalism does have a broader meaning than just works for salvation, but can also apply to works which are an attempt to please or placate God. However, what Paul writes about in Galatians is more apt to describe what, whether justified or not, some fundamentalists are accused of.
__________________
-Roger

Is it this one?

sadly this is not what many people mean by legalism. When the word "legalistic" is flung at us, it usually is in regards to standards....and usually standards which we apply to OURSELVES.

As you stated before, legalism is when standards or rules (opinions) are elevated to the level of salvation-earning....legalism is 'works salvation.' This is why it is such an affront to us fundamentalists when it is applied to us simply because we believe in some stricter standards.

It is very 'easy' to be a fundamentalist without being a legalist. It is always rather offensive to me when we are lumped together with legalism, as this thread seems to be implying.

In the 1994 (The Merriam Webster Dictionary) the definition for legalism is:
Legalism (n) ---
1) strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral Code.
2) a legal term.


Why don't we select this broad and relative dictionary definition as our standard. The meaning of strict, literal and excessive is left up the eyes of the beholder. That way everybody around me is a legalist. :thumbs:




David Geminden

 

[The Scribe]

I am assumming by legalistic you are referring to long hair on men,short hair and pants on women,secondary separation, am I correct?:godisgood:

If that's it, I am.

No long hair on men, Read only the KJV, and so on. :applause:

 

[thomas15]

....
I hold to each of the fundamentals that were written in The Fundamentals
But beyond believing in them, I will stand and fight for them...

Now the newer beliefs of the neo-fundamentalists... or as others call them the UFOs, I will not approve of them, until they meet the fundamentalist test: Is it in the Bible?

I agree totally with Tim. I would like to know if today's neo-fundamentalist label themselves neo-fundamentalists or just plain fundamentalists?

I have the The Fundamentals and I cannot remember seeing anything regarding secondary separation within it's pages. Maybe I'm missing it. Anyway, one of the halmarks of the neo-fundamentalists movement (as I see it) involves the KJVO issue. Yet I see nothing in the The Fundamentals on this and yet the RV and ASV were in print long enough for it to influence the articles.

I do not mean to offend anyone here.

 

[Ed Edwards]

So what are the uncontested biblical theological
definitions found in the Bible for the words legalism,
legalistic and legalist?

There are none.
Everything in the Bible is contested by somebody.

But here is a definition of 'legalism' that I
like from the very words of Jesus:

Mat 23:23 (Geneva Bible 1599):

Wo be to you, Scribes and Pharises, hypocrites:
for ye tithe mynt, and annyse, and cummyn,
and leaue the weightier matters of the law,
as iudgement, and mercy and fidelitie.
These ought ye to haue done, and not to haue left the other.

That reminds me, I need to tithe my dill ('anise') plant - freeze
change goes to ½ Sunday - I can't pick my dill tithe on Sunday .

I agree totally with Tim. I would like to know
if today's neo-fundamentalist label
themselves neo-fundamentalists or just
plain fundamentalists?

The neo-fundamentalists called themselves
'fundamental'. The world deriding them calls
them 'fundie (meaning 'fun-die').
Those of us Fundamentalists who don't
go in for un-fundamental, un-Biblical, un-American
doctrines bear the onus of the
"don't touch, don't lick, don't do" type legalists

Col 2:20-22 (Geneva Bible, 1999 Edition):
Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the ordinances
of the world, why, as though ye liued in ye world,
are ye burdened with traditions?
21 As, Touch not, Taste not, Handle not.
22 Which al perish with the vsing,
and are after the commandements and doctrines of men.

Say, that is a pretty good definition of legalism:

As, Touch not, Taste not, Handle not.


I called them Ultra-fundamentalists (beyond
fundamentlism) in an older writing:
-----------------------------------------------------
Last revised 13Oct07

The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism
(this are the ones I believe):

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

The ultra-fundamentals:

1. Anti-Bible (KJBO = King James Bible Only)
2. Pro-ignorance
3. Anti-success
4. Pro-legalism
5. Pro-hyper-seperation
6. Anti-alien (Hate of gays & women, racism, etc.)

Typical statements made by the ultra-fundamentalists:
(note that the world calls them "fundies"
and we real fundamentalists have to bear their
burden unjustly):

1. The KJB replaces the original language manuscripts as being God's word
2. Calling "seminary": "cemetery"
3. Jerry Falwell sold out to the Devil
4. violating Galations 2:21 (Geneva Bible, 1599):
As, Touch not, Taste not, Handle not.
5. If one doesn't describe their fundamentalism
in the same exact words as another - then the other
must separate from the one.
6. Jews killed Christ; kill a gayboy for Krist
-----------------------------------------------------

 

[The Scribe]

I called them Ultra-fundamentalists (beyond
fundamentlism) in an older writing:
-----------------------------------------------------
Last revised 13Oct07

The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism
(this are the ones I believe):

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

The ultra-fundamentals:

1. Anti-Bible (KJBO = King James Bible Only)
2. Pro-ignorance
3. Anti-success
4. Pro-legalism
5. Pro-hyper-seperation
6. Anti-alien (Hate of gays & women, racism, etc.)

Typical statements made by the ultra-fundamentalists:
(note that the world calls them "fundies"
and we real fundamentalists have to bear their
burden unjustly):

1. The KJB replaces the original language manuscripts as being God's word
2. Calling "seminary": "cemetery"
3. Jerry Falwell sold out to the Devil
4. violating Galations 2:21 (Geneva Bible, 1599):
As, Touch not, Taste not, Handle not.
5. If one doesn't describe their fundamentalism
in the same exact words as another - then the other
must separate from the one.
6. Jews killed Christ; kill a gayboy for Krist
-----------------------------------------------------

Okay, explain this to me.

I believe all ,The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism.

I'm KJV only, I'm not for gay marriage, I don't hate them, I hate their sin.

I'm not a racist or anti-woman.

I'm not anti-success, but we need to focus more on God than work. God comes first.

Jerry Falwell wasn't a bad guy was he? I can't find anything bad about him? I thought he was a good man. What do you think?

Explain please.

 

[Ed Edwards]

One has to belileve all six of the noted
beliefs of the hyper-fundamentalists to be
one of these (they aren't real fundamentalists
at all - they are wolves in sheep clothing).

I think since you only PASS one of the six
criteria that 'hyper-fundamentalist' doesn't
describe you. I describe shoes - if the shoes
fit - wear them; if the shoes don't fit - don't
wear them.

Nevertheless, I know some folks that believe &
practice all six of the hyper-fundamentals and
hardly any of the fundamentals.

 

[The Scribe]

One has to belileve all six of the noted
beliefs of the hyper-fundamentalists to be
one of these (they aren't real fundamentalists
at all - they are wolves in sheep clothing).

I think since you only PASS one of the six
criteria that 'hyper-fundamentalist' doesn't
describe you.

So, I guess I'm fine then?

I believe I'm fine.

 

[Ed Edwards]

You are probably fine.

But watch out when the KJVOs start preaching
that the KJV1769 Edition can be used as a
data base for divining the future -- this is NOT
legal. Trust only in God to Guide you in the future.
There are no private messages for you or me
in the Bible. The Bible message is the same for
you as for me (which is what we discuss a lot at the
BB).

Do you know about the Baptist Doctrine of
Compentency of the Believer?

 

[The Scribe]

You are probably fine.

But watch out when the KJVOs start preaching
that the KJV1769 Edition can be used as a
data base for divining the future -- this is NOT
legal. Trust only in God to Guide you in the future.
There are no private messages for you or me
in the Bible. The Bible message is the same for
you as for me (which is what we discuss a lot at the
BB).

I agree, there aren't any special messages for anyone in the Bible. We all follow the same way.

Do you know about the Baptist Doctrine of
Compentency of the Believer?

Is this what you mean?

Baptist Distinctives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[John of Japan]

In the 1994 (The Merriam Webster Dictionary) the definition for legalism is:
Legalism (n) ---
1) strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral Code.
2) a legal term.


Why don't we select this broad and relative dictionary definition as our standard. The meaning of strict, literal and excessive is left up the eyes of the beholder. That way everybody around me is a legalist. :thumbs:


David Geminden

Naw, anyone who doesn't go with the definition I gave is a legalist! :laugh:

Welcome to the BB and enjoy the occasional fireworks. :wavey:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Do you know about the Baptist Doctrine of
Compentency of the Believer?

Is this what you mean?

Baptist Distinctives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_Distinctives

Exactly!
"Compentency of the Believer" there is under
the paragraph "# 5 Individual Soul Liberty"

 

[shaneg]

it's a fixed poll. what's the point in voting?

Fundamentalism is legalism and religious tradition mixed.

I pity the people really. 90% of them wouldn't know Jesus, if he came up and slapped them...

the dumb chickenhawks...

I guess James was legalistic when he said "Faith without deeds is dead"