Legalism

You don't know the ones I know, then.

As for making lists, if God made a list then I am bound to follow it. If you make a list, forget it.

 

They serve alcohol ... better known in fundy circles as "liquor". </font>[/QUOTE]Tinytim was being facetious. No Fundamentalist I know of nowadays has a standard against eating at a place selling liquor (a word used in many circles, including among proprietors of "liquor stores"). </font>[/QUOTE]I was being facetious with the one on the doxology, but I do know some fundamentalists that look down their holy noses at people that go to restaurants that serve alcohol.

I'm not worried about the lists in the Bible.
but the extra-biblical rules are ridiculous.

 

And if the US government makes a list, forget it? And if the airline makes a list for me flying on their airline, forget it? The IRS? Your local exercise club?

Everyone makes lists of rules! Churches make rules called constitutions. If you are a member of my church, you'll follow the constitution or face disciplinary action! If I were the dean of a college and you did not follow the college rules, you would face disciplinary action. I find it disingenuous to say that lists of rules are legalism. (I don't say that anyone here is specifically saying that.)

Every institution has rules and everyone has to follow them. Having a list of rules only becomes legalism if you believe that following that list makes you righteous. As Jesus taught in His Sermon on the Mount, true godliness is internal, given by God's grace. I am not righteous because I follow rules, I am righteous through the grace of God. I follow rules to: "lead me not into temptation," keep me from causing others to stumble, etc., not to make me godly.

For the record, I have no list of personal separation standards for the church I pastor. But you do have to meet certain standards to serve the Lord in the church. You don't follow them, you don't usher here. However, if a church does have such a set of standards, what is that to me? I believe the Bible teaches the autonomy of the local church, so it is none of my business (or yours) what some other church does.

If a Christian or a church has his own list of standards, what is that to anyone else? It only becomes a problem when he tries to hold others to that standard--and I do realize some Fundamentalists do that, and that is wrong.

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ, brothers and sisters.

 

Not eating at a restaurant that serves alcohol...
I wouldn't be surprised if overhere that means no places available for eating out at all.

 

The same could be said for our city ... unless you eat at a McD's type, which would be fine with our kids.

 

Amusing thought. A legalist would avoid a food establishment that serves alcohol, but would have no problem going to a fast food establishment that serves gluttonous fare.

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy?

 

Is it true that a large Independent Baptist Church in Longview Texas forbids its female members to shop at Victoria's Secret?

 

No, I don't see any hypocrisy at all.

(1) How do you know whether or not the person with such a standard is a legalist unless you know they believe that particular standard makes them righteous? Maybe the person in question is a recovering alcoholic and doesn't want to go near the stuff! Having a standard doesn't make one a legalist. Every single person on this BB has standards of one kind or another, some quite strict some quite loose.

(2) For a full discussion of the tired old canard that gluttony and drunkenness are equal sins, see "Wine Bibbing and Gluttony" under "Fundamental Baptist Forum." If you do a quick search on your Bible software you'll find 40 mentions of "drunken, drunkenness" and only 5 of "glutton, gluttony, gluttonous," and 2 of those are the Pharisees attacking Jesus.

 

Sin is sin.

How many apples (be they big or little) on a tree proves it is an apple tree?

HankD

 

From what I can tell from the Scriptures, Christ's problem with the Pharisees was that they ignored the matters of the heart. He mentioned that they gave tithe of every little thing, their mint and anise, and Christ said that was GOOD. However, they had neglected the weightier matters....the heart issues.

So it was not that their list was too long, it was that their list did not ALSO include their heart attitudes towards God. If anything, their list should have been longer.

Granted, as a result of their long list of outward duties they had become snobbish and sneered at those who did not come up to par with them. That of course, is a heart issue, and is wrong. It does not imply that the outward appearance parts should be abandoned, nor should they be sneered at.

When one with "looser" standards starts to make fun of or mock and ridicule someone with "stricter" standards, then THEY are the one being the legalist.

 

Or at very least, equally as wrong.

HankD

 

You're actually making my point, not refuting it.

A legalist will avoid an establishment that serves alcohol, because that person cannot distinguish between consumption of alcohol and drunkenness. Yet that legalist will have no problem visiting a McDonald's because they can distinguish between consumption of a big mac and gluttony. In the least, it serves to suggest a legalist lacks mature discernment.

Look, if a person chooses to avoid a certain type of establishment out of personan choice and boundary, that's fine. But to require that of all Christians is pharasaical and self-righteous.

As for the "number of times" argument on sin being mentioned in scripture, does that mean that homosexuality is less of a sin because it's not mentioned as much as drunkenness? Ridiculous. Sin is sin.

 

but Johnv,

you just made the blanket statement that a legalist will avoid the establishment because they have a lack of mature discernment.

Aren't you then saying that having a standard is a lack of maturity?

Or are you merely referring to the heart issue of judging another person based on their own standards?

 

No. Actually, having a standard is a sign of maturoty. But enforcing that standard upon all is a lack of maturity. Further, implying that one is engaging in sin if they don't meet your point of standard is a lack of maturity.

Yes.

 

Thank you for clarifying.

You understand, those of us who have the stricter standards often get accused of foisting them upon others. Ive been called all sorts of things (not by you) just for stating that I have a particular standard.
Its an erroneous assumption made by many people that Ive encountered....simply because I state my opinion I must be forcing it on others. Btw, I only state it when asked about it.

That being said,
I felt the need to mention that being legalistic can go either way. One person made a list on the first page about what they'd call a legalistic church, but really you can have a church with an exact opposite list and it would be just as legalistic IF the people were unjustly judging others around them by that list.

We seem to forget that those with "looser" standards can and often are just as judgemental towards those who have stricter standards than they do.

 

That's true. That's also inappropriate behavior for the Christian. All of us, in one area or another, have differing standards that can be deemed "stricter". For example, I adhere to many kosher dietary laws whenever possible. Another example is that I'm anal about physical activity (you can find me at the gym 3 times in a given week). I do these things out of respect for the Lord via my body. That's strictly my choice. I don't think anyone has the right to tell me I'm wrong by doing these things, and it would be wrong for me to insist that other Christians do likewise, though I have often recommended these to others.

I do want to comment that "looser" and "stricter" often aren't. They're simply different. For example, if I said people who didn't eat kosher had "looser" dietary or excercising standards, that might imply (even if only in my own mind) that their standards aren't as good as mine. I try to avoid that trapping.

 

You've given a reasonable explanation here, and I think we mostly agree. I was thrown by your use of the term "gluttonous food." I think on reflection you'll agree that there is no such thing. People are gluttonous, not food!

As for the "number of times" argument, I was only giving that as a rule of thumb, not a complete argument. I perceive (correct me if I'm wrong) that your quick judgement here means that you have not read my arguments on the "Wine bibbing and gluttony thread."

Which is worse, alcohol abuse or food abuse? Hands down, alcohol abuse. No food abuser ever beat his children (like my grandfather beat my dad), starved his kids of food so that he could have more for his habit, got into fights at taverns because he had overeaten, killed someone with reckless driving because of eating too many twinkies. Alcohol is a dangerous drug.

 

I think you are missing my reason for posting the list on the first page.
I am not kicking standards, as one has already pointed out, everyone has standards.

What I was saying was that:
1) If church A PROMOTED a list that MADE one righteous then
2) Someone could fall into a trap of pride. They may think that they have got it all together and ignore other important things of the faith like forgiveness and unity.

If you notice on the list, there were Bible reading and prayer. Of course that is a GREAT standard to uphold. But if someone were to say, "I read my Bible 3 times a day, and you only read it 2, I must be more righteous" that would be legalism.

Standards are great. But don't force extra-biblical standards to your congregation just because you personally like them.

 

I understand Tinytim,

I guess I was really just using your list as a point of reference, not really as a comment of what I thought you were thinking by it.

I agree with your point, though I can't remember ever hearing of a church that had such a list....

I appreciate your reply.