Is Legalism a "Higher" Standard?

Exactly -- the principle is the determiner of right and wrong here (highest standard), not the preferences of how one guards against violation. You may guard against violating the principle in a way different than I do. That does not make your protection more spiritual or right.

 

I don't see how you can separate the standard from the protection gained by it. If there was a man in your church who frequented adult bookstores would talk to him about having a higher standard? Of course you would. Becuase you recognize the right and wrong that is at stake in the lower standard.

I also think there is a whole component that we are not really addressing here, adn that is the component of underlying worldview and philosophy of life. Standards, or lack of them, are an indication of how we view life. The problem with a lot of standards is that they were taught without an accompanying worldview. As a result Christians have been imbibing at the well of degradation for years, thinking it was okay because those who said not to drink were legalists and we didn't want to be those.

 

AAG,

we agree! How wonderful.

So then why is it that Ive been treated worse by Christians because of my standards than I have been by any other group of people? (not necessarily referring to this board)

I thought it was just people with standards like mine that treated people badly....

Yes, a little bit of sarcasm, but I know you appreciate that now and then.

Seriously though, its been those CHristians who had lower - less extreme - whatever - standards than I do who have treated me the worst...not those whose standards were higher than mine. And yes, there are some. lol

The wrong attitude can and often does go both ways. Frankly those of us with the higher standard tend to realize that we very easily could become prideful and we guard against it....to the best of our ability, which admittedly is not 100% perfection...whose is?

But those who have lower standards seem to not realize that they ought to guard against this attitude as well. Its as if they feel like they are immune to such a problem because they think we are the "ones in bondage and not free in Christ." That last statement seems to me to be full of pride and arrogance, but people seem to not realize how condescending it is.

 

I just cannot understand how wearing a dress means one has "higher" standards. My wife has not worn trousers since 1974. This does not mean her standards are any higher than anyone else. She has a different standard from many others but has not once been attacked ot criticised for it.

I always preach in a tie. Does that mean I have high standards?

Do I have high standards if I don't go to the cinema but dwell on immoral, selfish, prideful, or materialistic thoughts?

What good do "high standards" do? What do they mean. Is there some "high" standard rule book someplace where we can measure who has "high" and "low" standards? Don't tell the Bible is our "standards" book unless you can address these issues with Bible evidence.

Is wearer only dresses a higher standard than wearing a skirt and blouse? Is it a higher standard to always wear hose? Is my standard higher than another man's because I wear my hair close cropped to my head and he wears his 2 inches long? I wear a beard, does that mean I have lower standards that a man who doesn't? But, I only wear a goatee so are my standards higher than a man who wears a full beard? I have gone to the cinema 3 times in the last 25 years. Does that mean I have high or low standards?


Who determines what "higher" means?

 

Roger,

I think you are using wrong examples. In no example you gave I see a "higher/lower" distinction. Which is why I addressed a different issue ... nudity in movies. That is something we can address objectively.

Too many people are focused on the wrong things, IMO.

 

Exactly - that was my point.

Nudity in movies has Bible reasons why it is wrong. The Scriptures are clear on that. There I can agree with a principle of higher standards.

 

Come on Larry. The standard is the man-made tool used to guard against violating the principle. The problem lies in the tendency to make the man-made rule equal to the principle itself. Surely you see this distinction.

Another extreme example but I will reply within the parameters of a legalistic mindset ... obviously adult bookstores exist for the purpose of creating lust. The biblical principle is to avoid lust. The standard is ... I do not put myself in that situation so I choose to drive past the store in my car or take another route home. However if someone chooses to walk past the store or ride a bicycle past it, is my standard any more right or spiritual? Of course not. But legalism takes the standard (driving past the store) and makes it the principle (if you do something other than drive past the store in your car you are wrong). This is an extreme example but illustrates the point. Driving past the store is not a higher standard than walking past it. It is simply a different standard of protection.

The danger occurs when the standard becomes equal to the principle.

 

Perhaps in principle.

 

Is that because modesty has changed? Because we have become insensitive to it? </font>[/QUOTE]I think our sensitivity has changed.

 

AAG,

I do not understand why you insist on assuming Ive got this attitude you speak against. Ive never claimed to be more spiritual than anyone else.

 

Over the years I have noticed that some people live and die by the dreaded "pants issue". They waste so much time on it. Usually they use the same old arguments that usually end with questioning the other person's spiritual level and elevating their own to such a "higher standard." I don't believe there is any Biblical grounds for anyone to pass judgment either direction on the issue. Where does soul liberty come into play here?

 

I have been told on another board that if a woman cannot partake in an activity modestly wearing a dress (or cullotes) she should not do it.

I guess that it a REALLY high standard?

I modified my view (compromised?) after watching my 16 year old daughter play football (soccer) and the young lads waiting for her to fall so they could see up her legs.

 

Hey Rachel, How bleak is it for you? We are a cool and crisp 59 degrees here in Orlando.



Seriously, I agree with you Dr. Bob.

 

Yes, I see the distinction. But it is not a true distinction all the time. You are making a dichotomy between standards and principles. That dichotomy does not always exist. Sometimes standards are God's standards. And you can't separate that from the principle. God has made it plain that we are not to look at sexual nudity outside of marriage. When someone has a standard that refuses to go to movies that contain, that is not a "man-made rule." That is a God ordained standard. And that is what I am talking about.

I am not talking about this silly stuff about whether or not someone wears pants. I have no time for that debate. It is a silly stupid debate that should not even take place. IF someone doesn't want to wear pants, then don't wear them.

Another extreme example but I will reply within the parameters of a legalistic mindset ... obviously adult bookstores exist for the purpose of creating lust. The biblical principle is to avoid lust. The standard is ... I do not put myself in that situation so I choose to drive past the store in my car or take another route home. However if someone chooses to walk past the store or ride a bicycle past it, is my standard any more right or spiritual? Of course not. But legalism takes the standard (driving past the store) and makes it the principle (if you do something other than drive past the store in your car you are wrong). This is an extreme example but illustrates the point. Driving past the store is not a higher standard than walking past it. It is simply a different standard of protection.</font>[/QUOTE]Again, you are making this dichotomy that doesn't exist all the time. Your "walking past/driving around" fits your point. But I am not talking about that. I am talking about partaking in it. The standard that says, "I will not go into an adult bookstore" is a higher standard than the standard that says "I will go in." I had a man actually tell me once that he had no problem with pornography because he was just enjoying God's creation. I am not preaching here; I am telling the truth. That is a low standard.

Again, focus on my point: There are higher/lower standards in some cases. Sometimes, it is just preference.

It depends on whether or not it is a standard that God has ordained.

 

Just to clarify, so no one mistakes my position, I am not talking about this trivial issue of pants.

 

My comments about the pants debate being "stupid" were a bit over the top. I apologize for the strong statement. The time to edit has elasped. I think it is a debate about which people can differ, but there is no biblical position on the matter.

 

Legalism can be a higher standard depending on what scale is being used. However, on a biblical scale, legalism is definitely a lower standard.