The hidden danger of legalism

wrong with his just telling them they are "fallen from grace"?

Being holy as he is holy requires more holiness on our part, so your pointless in that regard here.

Holiness is separation from the world unto the Lord. Righteousness is imputed to us because of Christ and we are found worthy of sonship and justified freely by grace to be jopint heirs with Him in Christ. You're confusing the two.

:laugh: Dressing with distinctions to prevent gender confusion isn't ever wrong! Duet. 22:5

Staying with the proven to be least confusing version of the Bible is shear prudence.

Abstaining from fleshly lusts which are usually incorproated in most establishments mode of business isn't a suggestion, it's a COMMAND!

Scripture please?

 

Exactly! The arm of the flesh is always weak. Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it! Ps 127:1:godisgood:
What the Lord works in us comes through us and eventually appears on us.:godisgood:

"Run on the man of God's convictions until you get some of your own, it cannot harm you!":godisgood:

 

All these "things" you object to may be called "legalism" if you wish, but you are dictating to other churches what they have been granted autonomy in regard to that church's independence in self-governing.

That's LEGALISM!:laugh:

 

Changes your behaviour into what and because of what? Sounds legalistic, by your definition, to me!


To be called a Christian isn't a self proclamation, it's an award from others that humbles the true child of God as in his knowing how little like Christ he themselves really is!:godisgood:

 

Salamander, have we touched a nerve with you? I know a legalist when I see one. It's one thing to avoid gender confusion and it doesn't necessarily have to do with "pants." A legalistic pastor I know ran the cleaning lady out of the sanctuary because she dared to wear pants in there. And, while it is nice to hear some one else call me a "Christian" it's not their reward that I'm looking for. I'd much rather hear, "Well done thou good and faithful servant." And, legalism won't cut the mustard in regards to that desire.

 

If you believe that by doing certain things, God Loves you more than he loves me, I will not burst your holy bubble...

I am not in the mood right now to even argue over this....

I am sick of self righteous Christians that always complain and gripe about their brothers and sisters in Christ.

I told my wife tonight that I can understand why the world doesn't want to serve God, when half the time I get sooo frustrated by Christians that think they are better than other Christians!

I have a feeling that if we go by your list of dos and don'ts, I wouldn't measure up to you.
Heck, If we go by the list of dos and don'ts in the Bible, I don't measure up to you...

All my righteousness is based on Christ's perfect life.

So, if it makes you feel better that you are "more holier" than me...

I'll agree...

If it wasn't for my love and appreciation of Christ, I would throw in the towel, and give up!

 

Very good~

 

Some folks who demand Christian liberty in certain areas, are refusing to acknowledge that same Christian liberty belongs to the Pastors/elders that God has placed over His fellowship. These men must give an account to God for all they teach.

Do not question their motives as if you can see within their hearts. Some assume they are being "legalistic", when, in fact, they simply disagree with their teaching.

Jesus Christ commanded us to "make disciples" and to "teach them to obey all that I have commanded". (Matt. 28)

Further more, we know that Christ builds His church, placing men in positions of leadership for the purpose of equiping the saints for service. (Eph.4)

Pastors and other leaders must be allowed to follow the leading of Holy Spirit in the practical application of Christ's commands for His church.

If a Pastor/elder sees the command for "modesty" among the men and women in the church to mean wearing certain types of clothing that they believe will conform and meet the requirements of God for modesty, then the congreation is obligated to follow their leadership. God has placed them over you.

If you disagree, you must bear that disageement yourself and not cause friction within the fellowship. If you cannot bear it, you should leave and join with a like-minded congregation.

If the Pastor/elder sees the use of guitars/drums/amplifiers as violating the command to approach Almighty God with reverence and awe (Heb. 12:28-29) or believes such would disrupt the fellowship and cause disorder (almost ever letter Paul wrote included concerns about Christian unity and doing things in an orderly way) then the congreation is obligated to follow their leadership. God has placed them over you.

If the Pastor/elders believe watching certain movies would violate God's command to not to put any unclean thing before your eyes lest it carry you into sin (Matt 6:22-23, James 1:13-14) then the congreation is obligated to follow their leadership. God has placed them over you.

If you disagree, you must bear that disageement yourself and not cause friction within the fellowship. If you cannot bear it, you should leave and join with a like-minded congregation.

Let me make one more point. Even when I disagree with others about their interpretation of scripture, I pray I never fall so far as to criticize their leadership of their church.

They must give an account for that fellowship, not me. They must be allowed to follow the leadership of Holy Spirit in such areas.

peace to youraying:

 

That was a good post, and it reminds me of the fact that Jesus has said his church will forever stand...

Churches that are being led by Pastors who value their Man made standards above the standards from the Bible, will eventually see their flock decrease to the point that the church will close it's door... then God will deal with him.

But Churches that have Pastors that stick to preaching the Bible instead of man made opinions, will continue to grow. It is a promise of Jesus.

The Gates of Hell will not prevail against a church of Jesus Christ.

False holiness feels good for a while, but it will not sustain you.
It is like a Snicker's bar... it satisfies... only until you need another sugar boost.

A person may do everything the pastor says, and because of this, they may feel like a good Christian...
They may listen to the right type of music
Carry the right version
Dress the right way
Pray everyday
Attend every service
go soul winning on Tuesdays AND Saturday
They may be able to check off each item on their Pastor's "Good ol Christian" list....

But unless they are following Christ, discipling others, and are in a worshipful relationship with Jesus... they are missing out on a full Christian life...

It is like living on McDonald's food when you can have a home cooked meal.

McDonalds will satisfy you... but it will not sustain you.

 

I have a question if it's ok. Do you know, based on your experience, if these kind of churches normally question folks masculinity and feminity for no apparent reason? Even with normal looking people wearing normal dress attire which is actually more modest for that area?

Like maybe IFB's are stuck on a woman "being ladylike etc.."? Even despite the fact the bible uses the term woman and mere human beings cannot take away the fact they are a woman.

They don't become more of a woman or "more womanly" because of wearing dresses, not wearing pants etc...

Hope you understand what I am trying to say. Almost like promoting the gay agenda, questioning one's s*xuality yet they stop right before the point of going that far. Hope this makes sense...

 

I agree with Tim, that was an excellent post by canadyjd.

What determines whether or not a given action is legalism or not is the motive, the heart's desire in that situation. If the motive is to become pure and holy, then the action or standard is wrong. Legalism is the belief that works makes one holy, whether that

If the desire is to avoid temptation, then that is a different motive entirely. In fact Jesus actually commanded us to pray that we might be keep from temptation in the "Lord's Prayer," His model for how to pray. He said we are to pray, "Lead me not into temptation." So for example, if a pastor's motive in preaching modest dress is to help women avoid tempting us men in the assembly and elsewhere, I believe that motive to be obedient to Christ's command.

The opposite of legalism is antinomianism, the belief that all law, all rules are wrong. Frankly, I believe that antinomianism is a greater danger to the churches today than legalism. But no one talks or warns about it anymore.

I've never seen a thread on antinomianism on the BB, just endless threads and criticisms, over and over, of Fundamentalists with standards. Apologies to stilllearning, but that is exactly how I take the OP. And woe be to a Fundamentalist if he dares suggest to someone else that their standards might be improved. Lookout! The Fundamentalis is immediately accused of legalism--never mind his motives. :tonofbricks:

 

I'm not sure how you mean this. Depending on how you mean this, I might agree and I might disagree. If you mean that each person is a priest before God and responsible to Him for their life and for interpreting the Scriptures (the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer), I fully agree. I will never tell a believer what God's will is for him or her: who to marry, what job to do, where to live, etc. That as you say is the task of the Holy Spirit.

However, as it stands, your statement doesn't say that. You say that a pastor should not tell people "how to live their life." I entirely disagree with that. It is a pastor's sacred duty to tell people how to live their life before God. As Paul wrote, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2 Tim. 4:2). To reprove and rebuke is to tell people what is sin and what is not sin. If I believe an action people take in private in their own home is a sin, I have a duty to say so from the pulpit and reprove and rebuke that sin.

Concerning standards of personal separation, I have a duty as pastor to tell people (1) what standards to hold to that will help keep them from temptation, and (2) what standards to hold to that will help others to keep from stumbling.

Here is one example of Biblical preachers who told people what the standards ought to be. In the letter sent by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem to Gentile Christians, they wrote: "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well" (Acts 15:28-29). This letter was written, in fact, to teach that the legalism of the Judaizers was wrong--but it still taught standards.

Now, this one more thing may be what you are saying, I'm not sure. The preachers having said what the standards should be, had no authority to enforce them outside of the church at Jerusalem. Even there, their authority was only spiritual, not administrative. They could not punish people who did not obey the standards. They had no right to go into people's homes and check if people were eating meat offered to idols. That would have been a matter for the entire church, not the pastor alone.

Let me point out something else. Almost every modern church has standards. Those standards are written in the church constitution and by-laws. Those are sets of rules about how the church is to be run. In the old days (and occasionally today) additional rules were written in a church covenant. Now as pastor, if there is a rebellious member who does not obey the rules (constitution, by-laws, covenant), my next task is to begin the sequence of church discipline as laid out in Matt. 18. But that's another subject.

I've written at some length, believing that you truly want to learn. I hope this is a help and a blessing.

 

I am sure these situations exist... for instance I was on another Baptist message board, a IFB board, a couple weeks ago, and I saw a thread something like, "Should a man wear pink?" Or maybe it was Purple.. I don't remember the specific color now, but the idea was if a man wore a certain color, they were less of a man.

I have been in one situation that I will share here.

In 1998 our family was attending a IFB church.. The pastor was a very strict fundamentalist with a lot of Charisma... He preached against other versions, any music that was not a hymn, and was an avid "Be here for Tuesday Soulwinning, or your not right with God" preacher... (not that soulwinning is bad, but don't lay guilt trips on your parishoners in order to get them to do what you want)

One Sunday, one of my cousins brought their teenage neighbor to church. He was 16 or 17 and they set about 4 pews back from the altar.
This boy had his ear pierced...

And while preaching, the pastor looked at him and said that only queers pierce their ears... or women.

That boy was never back, and it only took me a couple weeks to get out of their also.

I hope this answers your question.

 

Glad to hear this!

If I were to respond fully here it would take us into a different area and maybe derail your thread. So I will only say briefly that your examples fall into the area of the moral will of God--that is, things clearly stated in Scripture as right or wrong. In order to make my examples more clear, maybe I should have said that, but I guess I just assumed it for the sake of the point I wanted to make.

I also believe there is a vocational and locational and marriage will of God, each of these being up to the believer to seek on his own, with guidance from the pastor but not oversight. There are of course obvious exceptions in these also with regards to the moral will of God.

 

Interesting story, thanks.
I wonder what that Pastor would do if confronted with the obvious, men and women pierce their ears. It's more common in women, but certainly not uncommon in men. Not to mention this is not Biblical. Oh well....