Definition:
Legalism= Every ungodly doctrine and habit I do not want to repent of.
-
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!
Literalism is a fatal disease
- Thread starter thomas15
- Start date
Definition:
Legalism= Every ungodly doctrine and habit I do not want to repent of.
Tom Butler
New Member
Y'all don't get too bent out of shape. SN is just having a little fun.
I see............................................
1st, I disagree with crabby's assertion that legalism necessarily follows from inerrancy.
2nd, legalism IS a real problem that occurs when people add regulations on people that are not required by scripture... When the "silences of scripture" are not properly guarded and respected. Someone can tell me that Drum sets, tattoos, and playing cards are sinful, but they can't do it using scripture.
--> A strong view of inerrancy and the sufficiency of scripture will actually guard against legalism.
3rd, It is true that a certain form of literalism that ignores context will lead to legalism, and totally illogical conclusions:
-We are all in sin if we eat a medium rare steak (Lev.19)
-I should regularly tell my dad that I hate him (Jesus' own words)
BUT... a way of approaching scripture that takes into account the whole of scriptures teaching on a topic will guard us from these false conclusions.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
OK, fair enough. What outrageous point(s) have I made that you don't like, that you think are unfair?
saturneptune
New Member
You really do take everything literally. It was a joke.
saturneptune
New Member
I take the story of Lazarus and the rich man literally. Maybe not in the sense it is an actual event, but it certainly is a literal description of the afterlife.
Sometimes, especially for a new believer, it is difficult to take everything on board straight away. I too have struggled with the literal interpretation of Genesis, and it is something I have had to work hard to overcome.
But, as people have said, if we still continue with severe doubts, and can only accept some of the Bible, don't we fall into a cherry-picking theology? Taking the bits we like and throwing out the rest? From then on, anything goes, and we surely descend into chaos?
But, as people have said, if we still continue with severe doubts, and can only accept some of the Bible, don't we fall into a cherry-picking theology? Taking the bits we like and throwing out the rest? From then on, anything goes, and we surely descend into chaos?
Maybe an informed post would merit a reasoned response.
So I see.....................
Liberalism blinds him
Or maybe we should always give reasoned responses even when we feel our opponent is not being reasonable... "And rthe Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, table to teach, patiently enduring evil,
correcting his opponents uwith gentleness..."
I would say Crabby's post was simply very incomplete, as he did not specify what in Genesis 1 & 2 he was refering to...
WOW!!!! I can't believe you never paid attention to this one...Havensdad is absolutely right CTB....simply read it again.
Genesis 1 describes what God did World-wide, Genesis 2 describes a separate event performed uniquely in the Garden of Eden ALONE....You also failed to bring up the tired liberal argument that all the animals (including the birds) were formed from the Earth (as opposed to the water) as in Genesis 1...that is yet one more Scripture-denying argument Bible-hating liberals are supposed to use. Two accounts...of two different events. No wonder your Theology is so askew.
It is a remarkable and amazing act of the wise Providence of Almighty God that we do not have the Original Autographs. Nothing would create better fodder for deniers of the preservation of Scripture than if we were forced to be slaves to the "Original Autographs"....All one would then have to do is cast dispersion on that 1 manuscript alone, and the entire record is then suspect.....Moreover, for the "Originals" to be preserved would have required the power of a monolithic Church-State political force (such as what the R.C.C. wants to be) which would by default mean that they were passed on by a subjective and concerned source. God was wise to rather leave us literally thousands- something like 5,300 + [by my latest reconing] manuscripts which may be compared and contrasted to ensure the 97-99% accuracy we can be confident of.....Possesion of the "Originals" would be a terrible thing indeed. God was not so foolish as to leave us those.
Only in your mind....they are simply not synonymous. There are Christian expositors aplenty who are "literallists" who are no more "legalistic" than the man in the moon. You are eaten up with a heart of rebellion CTB..."Legalism" is not even one whit a Scriptural teaching...but you clearly seem to think that the very notion of objective moral truth is (by definition) "legalism"...and you cannot distinguish between the two. You think that Jesus was some "greeny-sensitive" moron whose sole purpose was to drive around in a fuel-efficient Volvo with a "mean people suck" bumper-sticker. You could not be more wrong... Jesus didn't teach that...Jesus did not come to Earth for that purpose. Jesus didn't come to Earth to tell us that "Mean People Suck"...He came to tell us that we are ALL...wicked and un-deserving and without plea...that we are ALL! "mean people" and that we ALL "suck"...but he was GOD...and he loved us anyway, despite our wretched pre-disposition towards "Republicanism" and in order to purchase our redemption...he has to get the snot beat out of him to do it...And he loved us enough to do it anyway... That is why all Scriptural truths are hateful to you. You think that belief in all objective moral reality is "legalism" by default...and you are mistaken. You despise Scripture...but you adore its missuse. I urge you to repent.
Soap-box rescinded...sorry, can't help it sometimes.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Maybe it's this message-board medium, as opposed to actually hearing verbal inflection, etc., but this response is WAY to harsh.
Speak the truth of scripture and its inerrancy. Speak the truth that literalism does not equal legalism. Speak the truth of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Speak the truth of and encourage a needed repentance. But, please, do it in "love."
The Archangel
Love is not a feeling. Love is a motivation. I believe this was done in "love." I believe his comments were exactly right.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Don't get me wrong...I don't think his comments were wrong. Of course, I know love is not a feeling and I have preached that, sometimes, the single, most loving thing we can do for one another is judge one another to hold each other accountable, etc.
I would likely have let this go had HoS not put something in there about "Republicanism." This comment was from another high-octane, in-your-face thread.
It is this comment, not the rest, that threw up a red flag to me that the chastisement and exhortation, while absolutely correct, may not be motivated--truly motivated--by proper, Christian love.
The Archangel
PS. And don't think, even for a minute, that I agree in any way, shape, or form, with CTB's theology as stated here.
saturneptune
New Member
That is the best post I have seen in this thread. Some on this board make a good living from being a Pastor or other Christian leader in a ministry. Most have been to seminary, years of training. All feel they were called of the Lord. Along with that job, there is a certain temperment and patience required in communicating ideas, in line with the fruits of the Spirit. We should all have them, but most certainly leaders of a church. It could be the medium of a board like this one with no eye to eye contact contributes to the tone. The point is, if a pastor talked to their congregation in person like some of these posts, they would be out the door at the end of a pointed boot.