Legalism

[Spinach]

Teaching as doctrine the commandments of men is legalism.

Pushing your personal preferrences on others is legalism.

Thinking that your good works gain you favor with God is legalism.

Judging others by comparing them to yourself is legalism.

I speak from experience---I'm still detoxing.

Folks, it's never wrong to do right. But the attitude that our doing right grants us favor with God or makes us better than others is where we become wrong.

Legalism is ugly!

 

[Aaron]

Legalism is simply the thought that one is justified by the works of the law—period. Justification is by grace through faith. It is the gift of God.

Legalism is not the idea that certain things are right or wrong. I noticed many went immediately on their guard. The false accusation of legalism is often their only defence against one argument or another that goes against their pet indulgences.

 

[Peggy]

Sisters Scarlett and Donna, my sisters in Christ,

I never mentioned pants - I only mentioned what the Bible says about stumbling blocks. THAT is where liberals fall away from fundamentalists...we see those stumbling blocks as big issues for potential and fledgling Christians who haven't yet learned that all your righteousness is as filthy rags.

My pants aren't filthy rags... I do launder them.

Anyway, I don't think that anyone is going to become a Christian just by seeing Christian women wearing dresses instead of pants. You may be thinking that you are setting an example, but if you are judging others who do wear pants to church, that's legalism.

I actually think it is more of a stumbling block to insist on wearing dresses to church instead of pants. What if a woman isn't comfortable wearing a dress? Or doesn't have any suitable dresses? Or made to feel inferior because she is wearing pants? Or is the only one in church not wearing a dress? Do you really think a visitor would be encouraged to attend that church again?

I do think we should be respectful in church and our clothing does reflect that attitude. But wearing a nice pair of pants and a blouse or sweater can be just as respectful as wearing a dress. In fact, unless you are Amish, a pants and blouse can be more modest than a dress.

 

[Johnv]

Standards are good, if they are Bible standards.

People typically think their standards are biblical, and the other person's is not. For example, take the biblical mandate on modesty. People tend to take their application of modesty and get everyone else to conform to it. A bathing suit is immodest in Alaska, but it's not immodest on a Hawaiian beach. The legalist will lack the ability (or willingness) to discern between a biblical standard, and a personal application of that biblical standard.

Pushing your personal preferrences on others is legalism....

That, I believe, is the most common form of legalism. Just look at any thread where CCM is the topic.

 

[Steven2006]

"Legalism in Christian living may appear in two different forms, though often legalistic Christians practice both forms together.

In the first form of legalism Christians pursue sanctification by trying to keep the Law through self-effort. This legalistic approach to sanctification opposes the principle of grace, neglects the power of the Spirit, and leads to spiritual frustration and failure in attempting to conquer the sinful flash.

Christians experience freedom from bondage to legalism and victory over sin when they live by grace, rely on the Spirit, and obey Scripture through the power Spirit-produced love.

A second form of legalism imposes on Christians a code of conduct of human regulations about external observances and deeds. This form of legalism requires outward conformity to certain human regulations as a measure of religious achievement; does not properly consider one's inner character, motivation, power, and goals as essential factors in biblical spirituality; and appeals to fleshy performance and human pride. Paul evidently had this form of legalism in mind when he referred to Christians who submit to regulations "in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men" (Col. 2:22). Paul warned the Colossian Christians that their legalistic regulations were contrary to their identity with Christ. "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourselves to decrees, such as, "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" (2:20-21). Submission to these ascetic prohibitions is supposed to produce spiritual victory over the flesh. Instead, legalistic asceticism has two serious problems: It is the practice of "self-made religion" (2:23), and it does not sanctify (2:16-23), for it is of "no value against fleshy indulgence" (2:23)

Both forms of legalism involve a fleshy self-effort to conform to an outward code instead of an inward willingness to obey God from a Spirit-filled heart."

- From "Understanding Christian Theology"

 

[Scarlett O.]

Legalism is simply the thought that one is justified by the works of the law—period. Justification is by grace through faith. It is the gift of God.

Yes, this is true. And that is what we are talking about with the pants, drinking, et. al.

I know that this topic is not about women wearing pants, but that is a good example.

Many people view women wearing pants as unjustified, They feel that, according to their interpretation of the law that women find justification in wearing dresses only. They add wearing pants and long hair TO grace.

Legalism is not the idea that certain things are right or wrong. I noticed many went immediately on their guard. The false accusation of legalism is often their only defence against one argument or another that goes against their pet indulgences.

The accusation of legalism in the way that you have defined it and I have agreed to cannot be labeled as false.

If I do have any pet indulgences, it is not in the wearing of pants, but in the eating of a Snickers bar every now and again when I should be going for a walk. Or perhaps watching an episode of Deal or No Deal when I should be grading papers.

I do not defend those things. I cannot. There is no defense for them. But if someone were to tell me that watching television destroys my justification with God then they are indeed a legalist.

Funny, perhaps it's just my point of view, but the only people I see that are defensive are those who are claiming others here to be licentious.

Maybe I've read them wrong. I do that sometimes.

 

[donnA]

Sisters Scarlett and Donna, my sisters in Christ,

I never mentioned pants - I only mentioned what the Bible says about stumbling blocks. THAT is where liberals fall away from fundamentalists...we see those stumbling blocks as big issues for potential and fledgling Christians who haven't yet learned that all your righteousness is as filthy rags. So we tend to try and present good examples, aspiring to achieve Christ-like behavior so that others who don't yet understand GRACE will node and say 'They behave like Christians" - yes, we ask, what does a Christian behave like??? I shook hands with
a visitor at church Sunday night, introduced myself, and she said "Oh, you are that nice lady on Natalie's facebook page!" and I prayed a silent prayer of relief that I had behaved like a Christian when I didn't know who was watching!

I don't wear pants to church. I have always said that I want to elevate myself to a level of reverence, and pants make me feel casual - I don't want church worship to EVER be casual, I want to hold Almighty God in complete respect and reverence. If you want to wear pants to church, git on wif yur bad self!!! But its not for me. I am a jeans and tee shirt gal everywhere else BUT church.

And the topic of football broadcasted at church!!! I think that shows a total lack of respect for God's house. (That comes in from another thread where I had sarcastic remarks posted about me being a legalist)

Where does one draw the line on what behavior is acceptable? I use the Bible as a guide. If my study shows me that it is wrong to bring the world into the church, then it is NOT legalism, it is Bible conviction.

My comment about jealousy? If the shoes fits, but I don't believe it does in either of your cases, so don't fret it.

Dress slacks are not casual dress, not all dresses are for dress up, many are casual clothing themselves, if it's denim it's casual, if it's jumper with a tee shirt under it, it's casual.
I for one do not appreciate being told I am not reverenceing God if I wear pants to church. you have no idea about anyone other then yourself. If a person goes to church and they are covered where they are supose to be covered and not exposing themselves, then they are properly dressed, reverence is a matter of the heart not the dress. this would be God's job to decide whats in a worshippers heart. not yours.
if good works and our own righteousness is filthy rags, then it doesn't help you a bit wearing a dress and condeming people who wear pants.
Are we now letting the world tell us what a christian behaves like, are we to satisfy the world, satisfy others, or God? Which is it? If we are to use the bible as our guide why let men be our guide, which is it, men or God and the bible? because your advocating letting people guide us in what we do how we behave based on their flawed understanding, based on men's opinions, not God's.
No one understands your comment about jealously, thats why we asked. And you refuse to explain it. What are we to be jealous of, someone living in bondage to men's ideas, instead of allowing the bible to be the guide. I guess you would know if the shoe fits.
Self righteous attitudes like this is why we would never consider an IFB church.


Steven2006

A second form of legalism imposes on Christians a code of conduct of human regulations about external observances and deeds. This form of legalism requires outward conformity to certain human regulations as a measure of religious achievement; does not properly consider one's inner character, motivation, power, and goals as essential factors in biblical spirituality; and appeals to fleshy performance and human pride. Paul evidently had this form of legalism in mind when he referred to Christians who submit to regulations "in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men" (Col. 2:22). Paul warned the Colossian Christians that their legalistic regulations were contrary to their identity with Christ. "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourselves to decrees, such as, "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" (2:20-21). Submission to these ascetic prohibitions is supposed to produce spiritual victory over the flesh. Instead, legalistic asceticism has two serious problems: It is the practice of "self-made religion" (2:23), and it does not sanctify (2:16-23), for it is of "no value against fleshy indulgence" (2:23)

Both forms of legalism involve a fleshy self-effort to conform to an outward code instead of an inward willingness to obey God from a Spirit-filled heart."

meaning it's all for show. They can not see the heart of anyone but themselves, yet judge others blindly anyway.

 

[dcorbett]

My pants aren't filthy rags... I do launder them.

Anyway, I don't think that anyone is going to become a Christian just by seeing Christian women wearing dresses instead of pants. You may be thinking that you are setting an example, but if you are judging others who do wear pants to church, that's legalism.

I actually think it is more of a stumbling block to insist on wearing dresses to church instead of pants. What if a woman isn't comfortable wearing a dress? Or doesn't have any suitable dresses? Or made to feel inferior because she is wearing pants? Or is the only one in church not wearing a dress? Do you really think a visitor would be encouraged to attend that church again?

I do think we should be respectful in church and our clothing does reflect that attitude. But wearing a nice pair of pants and a blouse or sweater can be just as respectful as wearing a dress. In fact, unless you are Amish, a pants and blouse can be more modest than a dress.

You didn't read what I said. Go back and read it again. I never mentioned pants. And don't make fun of scripture.
Isaiah 64:6 (King James Version) But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

 

[dcorbett]

Donna

I for one do not appreciate being told I am not reverenceing God if I wear pants to church. you have no idea about anyone other then yourself. If a person goes to church and they are covered where they are supose to be covered and not exposing themselves, then they are properly dressed, reverence is a matter of the heart not the dress. this would be God's job to decide whats in a worshippers heart. not yours.
if good works and our own righteousness is filthy rags, then it doesn't help you a bit wearing a dress and condeming people who wear pants.

you did all that ranting for no reason. Re-read what I wrote. I said "IT'S NOT FOR ME" and I meant that. Wear whatever you want, its your walk with God, and its the world looking at you.

Are we now letting the world tell us what a christian behaves like, are we to satisfy the world, satisfy others, or God? Which is it? If we are to use the bible as our guide why let men be our guide, which is it, men or God and the bible? because your advocating letting people guide us in what we do how we behave based on their flawed understanding, based on men's opinions, not God's.

No, but how can we win the world to Christ if they don't want what we have through our example and therefore, don't respect us?

No one understands your comment about jealously, thats why we asked. And you refuse to explain it. What are we to be jealous of, someone living in bondage to men's ideas, instead of allowing the bible to be the guide. I guess you would know if the shoe fits.
Self righteous attitudes like this is why we would never consider an IFB church.

Donna, why are you spitting venom at me? I am not self-righteous. You know me better than that. I am simply standing up for Christian values and principles. Some people post as if there are no values to uphold and no principles to adher to, choosing to call any moral principle "legalism' instead, especially when the principle makes them uncomfortable...

and "no one" understands??? Are you all discussing me in some little side group? The Bible IS my guide, not my license to sin.

You have hurt me deeply by these comments. I choose not to be hurt by you. I will pray for you instead.

 

[dcorbett]

IFB churches are wonderful, by the way. No head committee or association President somewhere telling us what to do or what to preach this week, and we get to give our missionary money to whom we choose instead to a central committee to dole out. There is a lot more to IFB than just the fundamental old-time values. We are truly autonomous, as was the early Christian church.

 

[Robert Snow]

I don't want or need your pity. I am happy in my walk, I grow daily in Christ. I don't need your sarcasm or your judgemental remarks as a result.

I was only matching your arrogance. After all, you implied that people were jealous of you because you evidently have some type of a superior walk than the rest of us.

The truth is that I came out of extreme fundamentalism. It is such a relief to finally focus on pleasing God instead of men. And to finally put down the KJV and find a bible that is understandable is icing on the cake!

 

[Aaron]

If I do have any pet indulgences, it is not in the wearing of pants, but in the eating of a Snickers bar every now and again when I should be going for a walk.

Another woman may believe wearing pants is wrong. That's not legalism. It's only legalism if one believes she is justified by wearing skirts.

 

[donnA]

No head committee or association President somewhere telling us what to do or what to preach this week

we don't have anyone telling us what to preach this week either, so drop your superiority.

and we get to give our missionary money to whom we choose instead to a central committee to dole out

we do both.

We are truly autonomous, as was the early Christian church.

se are we.

You have hurt me deeply by these comments

and what of you, your telling us we aren't reverencing God if we wear pants, and that your morals are superior then ours because we wear pants. look in the mirror next time.

The Bible IS my guide, not my license to sin.

mo mot exactly, you already told of others being your guide, like satisfying what others beleive to be christian or not, even if the bible says something else.

I am simply standing up for Christian values and principles.people post as if there are no values to uphold and no principles to adher to

and we aren't? we are the opposite?
see, slinging those insults left and right, we aren't as morally superior as you seeing how as we don't have values to hold too.

but if you are judging others who do wear pants to church, that's legalism.

yes it is

Or doesn't have any suitable dresses?

then they aren't allowed in an IFB church.

Or made to feel inferior because she is wearing pants?

in an IFB church you are apparently inferior if you wear pants, and apparently they'll let you know of their superiority too.

 

[Johnv]

THis is a bit of a generalization, but I've often found it ironic that many of the IFB churches that demand "conservative" dress are KJVO, which categorically makes them liberal churches.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Another woman may believe wearing pants is wrong. That's not legalism. It's only legalism if one believes she is justified by wearing skirts.

:thumbsup::flower: Yes, that what I said if you read the rest of my post. :flower:

 

[tinytim]

THis is a bit of a generalization, but I've often found it ironic that many of the IFB churches that demand "conservative" dress are KJVO, which categorically makes them liberal churches.

Yes.. some are delusional.

Legalism is like Aaron said...
PLUS

Anytime we think we can do or not do something to earn God's approval and love
God is not going to love me more or less than he does now..
God's love for his children does not change.

He loves us all equal.

But some want to follow rules to prove they are more holy than others...thinking God loves and approves them more.

We are all worms..
The only thing that counts is Christ's righteousness...

And when God looks at his children he approves us because of what Christ did..
Not what we wear, when we have church, or what translation we carry..

Those are stupid rules made up by people trying to prove to others they are more holy than other people...

and it comes out in posts here on BB..

It is easy to see who is caught up in trying to prove they are holier than thou...

Some no nothing about Christian freedom...

And that saddens me.

 

[tinytim]

I was only matching your arrogance. After all, you implied that people were jealous of you because you evidently have some type of a superior walk than the rest of us.

The truth is that I came out of extreme fundamentalism. It is such a relief to finally focus on pleasing God instead of men. And to finally put down the KJV and find a bible that is understandable is icing on the cake!

Praise God you are like me..

I too was raised in nutcase fundamental dysfunctional churches..

 

[Peggy]

I was also raised in a KJV church, and memorized hundreds of verses in KJV English.

It is wonderful today to be able to read and understand the Bible in understandable English, not an antiquated 400-year-old version of English.

Although, I am grateful for the memorization because the verses come back to mind often.

 

[sag38]

No head committee or association President somewhere telling us what to do or what to preach this week, and we get to give our missionary money to whom we choose instead to a central committee to dole out. There is a lot more to IFB than just the fundamental old-time values. We are truly autonomous, as was the early Christian church.

Not to derail the thread but I am in a SBC church and we have no Association President telling us what to do, what to preach (I alone determine what is preached through prayer and Bible study), or who to give our money to (we decide that as a church body on a yearly basis). Yes, by free choice we support SBC missionaries. However, some of our SS classes directly support some missionaries monetarily (again by free choice.) My SBC church is truly autonomous too. We practice the fundamentals too. But, we do not believe that the KJV is the only right Bible. We do not preach that a man can't have long hair or that women must wear a dress in the worship center etc. Autonomy, I can agree with as that is Biblical. Yet, hair and attire requirements and Bible version requirements are not Biblical and therefore fall into the category of legalism.

 

[Trotter]

Not to derail the thread but I am in a SBC church and we have no Association President telling us what to do, what to preach (I alone determine what is preached through prayer and Bible study), or who to give our money to (we decide that as a church body on a yearly basis). Yes, by free choice we support SBC missionaries. However, some of our SS classes directly support some missionaries monetarily (again by free choice.) My SBC church is truly autonomous too. We practice the fundamentals too. But, we do not believe that the KJV is the only right Bible. We do not preach that a man can't have long hair or that women must wear a dress in the worship center etc. Autonomy, I can agree with as that is Biblical. Yet, hair and attire requirements and Bible version requirements are not Biblical and therefore fall into the category of legalism.

Same thing here.

I am amazed at the picture people outside of the SBC paint of the SBC. There are no "orders from headquarters". There is no one telling any church what to do or what to preach. As fas as I know the only requirement for a church to be SBC is to agree to the Baptist Faith and Message, and the BF&M is not worded tightly regarding actual doctrine.

Sure, we can give to the SBC and let them divide it up. I think the percentages are 10 for colleges/seminaries, and 45 each to the IMB and NAMB. Or we can send money directly where we want to send it. Or we can not send any at all.

As for fundamentals, my church sticks to the real fundamentals. Not the legalism and man-made crap, but what the bible is and what it says. Yep, we are SBC, but we're as non-liberal as you can get.