Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Some “legalistic rules of conduct” are really New Testament doctrines and instructions that rebellious people don’t want to obey. 
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Legalism? in the Church
- Thread starter Craigbythesea
- Start date
Lacy Evans
New Member
Both statements are true. Beware of itchy-ear scratchers AND Pharasies.
Lacy
BTW There seems to be more of the former in our day. (Laodecia)
Lacy
BTW There seems to be more of the former in our day. (Laodecia)
Marcia
Active Member
I think legalism is when you try to say someone is not a Christian if they are not following a rule you think they should, or if someone says you are not saved because there is some work you have not done, or it is rules that some people think are Biblical but aren't (like no make-up on women, women can't wear pants, etc.).
I think legalism is deadly to the body of Christ. All of us are being sanctified at different rates. We should encourage obedience to the Bible and rebuke a brother in sin who is not repenting, but the church should not impose special legalistic rules (as in the cases mentioned in 1st paragraph). This only leads to spiritual pride and division. We are supposed to be humble and not regard ourselves better than another. Legalism promotes the opposite.
The rules of conduct, such as how to deal with sin in the church, or the qualifications of an elder, etc. I don't regard as legalistic.
I think legalism is deadly to the body of Christ. All of us are being sanctified at different rates. We should encourage obedience to the Bible and rebuke a brother in sin who is not repenting, but the church should not impose special legalistic rules (as in the cases mentioned in 1st paragraph). This only leads to spiritual pride and division. We are supposed to be humble and not regard ourselves better than another. Legalism promotes the opposite.
The rules of conduct, such as how to deal with sin in the church, or the qualifications of an elder, etc. I don't regard as legalistic.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Titus 3:8-9 (HCSB):
This saying is trustworthy. I want you to
insist on these things, so that those who
have believed God might be careful to
devote themselves to good works. These
are good and profitable for everyone.
9 But avoid foolish debates, genealogies,
quarrels, and disputes about the law,
for they are unprofitable and worthless.
This saying is trustworthy. I want you to
insist on these things, so that those who
have believed God might be careful to
devote themselves to good works. These
are good and profitable for everyone.
9 But avoid foolish debates, genealogies,
quarrels, and disputes about the law,
for they are unprofitable and worthless.
USN2Pulpit
New Member
If we obeyed this one, we'd have to shut down at least half of this bulletin board.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
If we obeyed this one, we'd have to shut down at least half of this bulletin board.
</font>[/QUOTE]Yep. Where is the genealogydiscussion?
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
1 Corinthians 11
1. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
2. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you.
3. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
5. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
6. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
7. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
8. For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
9. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
10. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.
12. For as the woman was from the man, even so the man also is through the woman; but all things are from God.
13. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14. Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
15. But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
16. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. (NKJV)
1. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
2. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you.
3. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
5. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
6. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
7. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
8. For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
9. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
10. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.
12. For as the woman was from the man, even so the man also is through the woman; but all things are from God.
13. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14. Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
15. But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
16. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. (NKJV)
We have very few rules, actually, from the NT. We could compile a list of "do's and don'ts" from the Bible with ease.
BUT THESE ARE NOT! No smoking, attending prayer meeting, bus calling, no slacks, no movies, no cards, no dancing, no chew, no cholesterol, no other bible than a kjv, no . . .
These are some of the hundreds of man-made rules that comprise legalism, the scourge of the church today.
BUT THESE ARE NOT! No smoking, attending prayer meeting, bus calling, no slacks, no movies, no cards, no dancing, no chew, no cholesterol, no other bible than a kjv, no . . .
These are some of the hundreds of man-made rules that comprise legalism, the scourge of the church today.
Rules don't comprise legalism. Hypocritical rules, or defining godliness by my rules comprise legalism. An institution, family, church, etc. has a right to have any rules that they want. My church can say everybody has to wear green suits with yellow ties on Sundays and has that right, but when they say, "Your church is not godly if you don't wear green suits and yellow ties" they have crossed over into legalism.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
What about the man-made rule that says you can't have rules in the church about smoking, etc? Do you consider that a part of the scourge as well?
Andy </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, Andy, I agree. We need a rule against all rules, including this one.
WallDoctor
New Member
In our day and age people are too afraid to call sin sin. All Christians should question their faith if they knowingly and willfully disobey God in either an explicit command of scripture, or if they violate their conscience. This is the law of liberty.
If I sin in an area of where God gives command in the NT and I don't have remorse or repentance. I am in danger of hell fire. There are many "lists" in the NT which tell us acts which are evil and sinful.
But also, if we violate our conscience, we are as much in sin as if we broke commandments God gives us in Scripture.
The difference between the laws in Scripture and laws of conscience, is that no man has the right to dictate to me what my conscience should be bound by.
So, while the bible teaches we should be modest, don't ever tell me that my daughter is sinning because we have no conscience problem with her wearing jean shorts 1 inch above her knees.
On the other hand, 1 Cor 8:9 says, "But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak." If I was going to a persons house that was more conservative than I, in respect for them and their views, I would make my daughter wear something longer in order to show respect and also not to cause that weaker brother to fall in to sin. We have an obligation in our liberty and love for others to change our actions for the sake of others and not our own.
So legalism in my mind isn't when someone tells me, that I will goto hell if I don't stop a certain sin which he can quote from scripture (especially for the sake of argument if its in the NT). Legalism is when he judgementally condemns and judges me by his personal consciences criteria.
He can hold me to biblical principals, but after that, he has to allow me to develop my own sense of practical applications for that principal.
For example. Drinking alcohol nowhere in scripture is said to be wrong. My wife and I are baptists, but we do drink. We never get drunk, we never goto bars, we never drink in a public place where we believe our christian witness will be compromised (ie. Ballgames and such), we never drink in front of other christians who we know are offended by it, and if we aren't sure, we err on the side of caution and abstain. Mostly, we allow ourselves one drink every so often in the privacy of our own home. This is our own personal application of drinking---you might not like it, but you can't call it sin for us. You can call it sin for you or you might be more lenient in certain ways of how you apply it, but we have applied all biblical principals concerning it. Never allowing others to stumble because of it and always in moderation. Commands definately taught in scripture.
My perspective on Legalism and Liberty.
If I sin in an area of where God gives command in the NT and I don't have remorse or repentance. I am in danger of hell fire. There are many "lists" in the NT which tell us acts which are evil and sinful.
But also, if we violate our conscience, we are as much in sin as if we broke commandments God gives us in Scripture.
The difference between the laws in Scripture and laws of conscience, is that no man has the right to dictate to me what my conscience should be bound by.
So, while the bible teaches we should be modest, don't ever tell me that my daughter is sinning because we have no conscience problem with her wearing jean shorts 1 inch above her knees.
On the other hand, 1 Cor 8:9 says, "But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak." If I was going to a persons house that was more conservative than I, in respect for them and their views, I would make my daughter wear something longer in order to show respect and also not to cause that weaker brother to fall in to sin. We have an obligation in our liberty and love for others to change our actions for the sake of others and not our own.
So legalism in my mind isn't when someone tells me, that I will goto hell if I don't stop a certain sin which he can quote from scripture (especially for the sake of argument if its in the NT). Legalism is when he judgementally condemns and judges me by his personal consciences criteria.
He can hold me to biblical principals, but after that, he has to allow me to develop my own sense of practical applications for that principal.
For example. Drinking alcohol nowhere in scripture is said to be wrong. My wife and I are baptists, but we do drink. We never get drunk, we never goto bars, we never drink in a public place where we believe our christian witness will be compromised (ie. Ballgames and such), we never drink in front of other christians who we know are offended by it, and if we aren't sure, we err on the side of caution and abstain. Mostly, we allow ourselves one drink every so often in the privacy of our own home. This is our own personal application of drinking---you might not like it, but you can't call it sin for us. You can call it sin for you or you might be more lenient in certain ways of how you apply it, but we have applied all biblical principals concerning it. Never allowing others to stumble because of it and always in moderation. Commands definately taught in scripture.
My perspective on Legalism and Liberty.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I didn't say anything.
I just quoted scripture.
You are a competent soul and can
figure out what they mean.
I just quoted scripture.
You are a competent soul and can
figure out what they mean.
Such is the case of the Pharisees in 110 BCE. They began to codify the actual black-and-white rules of the OT Law, THEN began to add man-made rules. MOST of those man-made rules were designed to keep one from violating the Biblical rule. They were all well-intentioned. BUT NOT BIBLICAL!
They are condemned and their man-made rules (like washings) were mocked by Jesus.
Don't need a rule "against" man-made rules. We already have the actions of our Lord that makes such of no effect.
Yet Jesus told His disciples to obey the rules of the Pharisees because they were the spiritual leaders of the day. He never condemned the rules. He condemned the hypocrisy of enforcing rules on others by which they themselves would not abide. Rules do not automatically equal legalism.
What about 'em? They're societal and communal rules. Each church is allowed to set rules such as these for the benefit of their congregants. Our church property is a non-smoking campus. If you're visiting, ya can't smoke anywhere in the grounds. They also have rules that require the wearing of shoes and shirts. That dun't make the church pharasaical. Just socially conscious. Oh, here'a another rule. If you arrive for services after the Call to Worship has ended, you won't be allowed to be seated until after the choir sings its anthem. This is done so as not to not disrupt the service. Once the sermon has started, you can only sit in the real balcony.