Is Legalism a "Higher" Standard?

but Gold Dragon,

legalism is not the standard, legalism is the attitude towards one's standards.......

 

Fair enough. I would say it is a sinful and prideful attitude towards one's statards.

 

Gold Dragon,

Im going to put that in my personal dictionary.

 

That comment wasn't intended to be definitional, but you are free to use it if you like.

 

And thus become divine principles.

Rarely do I think you are just wrong on something. Here I do. When someone sets a personal standard that they will not attend a movie that has nudity, they are creating a standard ... it is man-made. If it were God-ordained, it would be just that ... Thou shalt not attend movies with nudity.

I am not saying it is not a good, proper, or right standard. That is not the argument. But it is still man-made. Would you argue that a person is violating God's "standard" if they sat through the entire movie with their eyes closed and never saw the nudity? Extreme example but illustrates the point.

Man-made standards are not bad things. They serve a purpose: preventing one from violating the greater divine principle/standard. But they are never equal to the principle itself. If they were, they would be the principle. Legalism surfaces when the man-made standard becomes equal to the principle (not going to movies with nudity = not lusting). It is one thing for me to say "it is a sin to lust over sexual nudity." It is another thing for me to say "going to a movie with nudity in it is equally as sinful" (again what if I sit with my eyes closed?).

Actually that is simply disobedience to God's command. He should have set a standard that prevented him from getting in that situation.

 

I don't think you display an outward attitude of spiritual superiority. I am simply making an observation based on our conversations, reading what you have written in other posts, and based on the positions of the church you attend and seem to support 100%. Again the underlying mindset of legalism is often unspoken.

Nothing personal just observation.

 

AAG,

I think you are making a distinction without a difference there. To look for a verse that says, "You shall not go to movies with sexual nudity" is absurd, as you well know and agree (I'm sure). There were no movies at that time. But it is a "good and necessary consequence" of the biblical principles that apply that standard as God's standard because of what God has said. To call it a principle hardly changes the matter, it seems to me.

The point at hand, specifically, is about higher vs. lower standards? Two people. One says "I won't go to movies with sexual nudity;" the other says "I will go to movies with sexual nudity." Which standard is higher? The first obviously. That is the point.

It is absurd to say that there is not such thing as a "higher standard," as some here are doing. There are areas where there are higher standards.

 

Which is why the standard is a man-made application of the divine principle.

Principle simply helps clarify the distinction between divine rule and human application. Not making the distinction naturally leads the underlying problem this thread tries to address -- making human standards equal with God's.

As far as the higher-lower discussion, the distinctions you make are not the problem. The problem lies in the predominant mindset behind the usage of the term "higher" ... the mindset where one's level of spirituality is judged solely on their personal preferences. You are simply the exception to the rule. You recognize this reality don't you?

 

Let's ask it this way: If God were writing the Bible today, would he say something about watching movies with sexual nudity in them? I think he would. That is why it is not a "man made" application, IMO.

I wonder if there is not a reverse kind of legalism here, a legalism that says the explicit Bible statements are the only things that are really mandated. Everything else depends on personal preference. That seems equally troubling. The WCF included the "good and necessary consequence" line for that reason, I believe.

As far as the "predominant mindset," I wouldn't presume to comment on that. That may be true here on this board, but that is a fairly limited sample. Even in your milieu, that may be true, but still a fairly limited sample. But your comments are certainly right about some people.

And I have been told before that I am exceptional ... I'd like to think that they meant that in a good way ... ... I am probably wrong on that too

 

This is quite a leap. Obviously opportunity was available to make these type of statements in NT times and the writers did not do so. Instead they articulated the God-ordained principle -- abstain from sexual lust.

I thought they taught these distinctions in Fundamentalism 101 -- principles demand standards which necessitate preferences. The problem comes when the 3 are elevated to an equal plane.

Principle: Avoid sexual lust
Standard: Abstain from nudity which leads to sexual lust
Preference: Do not attend R-rated movies.

A bit simplistic but illustrates the point.

 

I don't think that is a leap at all.

And where was there opportunity to address sexual nudity in movies in the NT? Are we talking about the same thing? The Bible does address these things very clearly. It seems to me you are really reaching.

Your three fold division is convenient but not really solid it seems. Notice that I didn't say anything about R-rated movies. You included that. I was talking about a direct biblical issue.

I think this distinction between principle and standard won't stand up too well under scrutiny. It works sometimes, but not all the time.

 

There was opportunity for Paul to address specific instances ... brothel houses, etc. were abundant in Corinth. Movies would be a specific instance where the principle is to be applied.

Obviously the three-fold division is not an exhaustive or bullet-proof treatment of this subject. It is not meant to be. But it does illustrate how man-made standards are often placed on an equal plane with God's standard/principle (pick your term).

Would you agree that man-made standards are one step removed from the God-ordained principle itself?

 

[qutoe]There was opportunity for Paul to address specific instances ... brothel houses, etc. were abundant in Corinth.[/quote]He did address this ... in 1 Corinthians 6.

Of course ... Who wouldn't? BUt I think our difference is on what a "man made" standard is. Some things that you call "man made" are things that I think are "God ordained."

 

Using 2 ply toilet paper over 1 ply is a manmade standard, and it's worthy standard to hold to if possible.

Fastening your seatbelts while driving is a manmade standard, and it's a worthy standard to hold to.

Not mixing plaid and paisley is a manmade standard, and it's a worthy standard to hold to.

 

Actually Paul addressed the principle ... do not indulge in sexual sins.

Would you say not attending a movie with sexual nudity in it is a man-made or God-ordained standard?

It may appear we are nit-picking to some, but this distinction is key to understanding how legalism evolves.

 

But doesn't man make his standards in light of God's Word??? Yes, of course, else he'd run rampant in immorality, that is why it is so sad, yet laughable, for those to call "higher standardists"/ legalists.

Since one can only obtain favor with God by obedience to His Word, legalism can only be man's part to either obtain salvation, or to maintain salvation. Since neither of those can really happen, "legalist" is a derogatory name given to those who wish to please God by their modesty, by those who want to tear down morals, even to the point of inciting modernism into a form of modesty.

 

And specifically mentioned prostitutes. To not indulge in sexual sins is a command that includes a wide number of prohibitions. You are really trying to make a distinction that doesn't exist.

God ordained. But I don't subscribe to your legalistic standard that everything not written down is a matter of personal preference ...

Not really. Legalism is the raising of unnecessary standards to be a someone else's measure of spiritual maturity. We are not talking about that at all, at least I am not. Maybe you are.

 

Wow. Let me get this straight. Let's say someone attends a movie with sexual nudity and sits through the entire movie with their eyes closed, they have broken a God-ordained standard?

Actually you just did it. You said attending or not attending a particular event determines whether someone violates God's standard of purity.

 

Galatians 5
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

gentleness :5544 chrestotes
Meaning: 1) moral goodness, integrity 2) benignity, kindness

goodness :19 agathosune
Meaning: 1) uprightness of heart and life, goodness, kindness

Temperance :1466 egkrateia
Meaning: 1) self-control (the virtue of one who masters his desires and passions, esp. his sensual appetites)

25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.


HankD

 

AAG,

attending or not attending certain events CAN violate God's standards of purity.

And I believe you have also elevated your own standard to a point where it determines another person's spirituality. Im not taking this personally, not offended at all, just pointing out that based on what church I go to you've determined Im a legalist. Even though you really know nothing about the particular attitudes at my church. According to your own definitions you've decided that the events I attend violate some kind of spirituality.

There's a discussion going on in the Fundamentalist forum on "real holiness" in which there have been some excellent posts made concerning this sort of thing. Some of us are taught these things based on respect for other people. Ive never heard it taught that ANY standard is held in order to make oneself more holy. We are always teaching that the standards we hold to are there as a protection against falling into worse things, or as a respect towards other people in order not to be a stumblingblock, or in order to treat God's temple as we should.

Edited to add a thought:
How many of you who say that "standards of personal separation are not a measure of one's spirituality" ALSO say that "if a person isn't living right then they obviously were taught by easy-believism and probably never had a true conversion at all."
??