The hidden danger of legalism

[nodak]

So, salamander, let me see if I understand you correctly:

If my pastor dresses like the rest of the men around here, in jeans and western shirts, that is equal to transvestite behavior?

If I use the NIV in witnessing to my oil field worker neighbor, that is equal to behaving like a homosexual?

So you are saying all manner of dress save 1955 middle class white american is sinful?

If using modern language copies of the scripture is sinful, would that not mean the reformers were wrong to translate it into their language for the common man? So isn't the KJV wrong to use by that reasoning?

 

[superwoman8977]

Stilllearning, this subject has been done to death here. And I usually find that people don't understand what legalism really is. Simply having standards or rules to live by is not legalism. Everyone has those. And as my beloved father used to say, "I would much rather be criticized for having standards that are too high than for having standards that are too low."

No, the theological definition of legalism is the belief that those rules bestow holiness. I've given quotes from theologians here before on this. Don't have time to now.

I love people that try and say being legalistic is ok and then they justify the 2000 "rules" saying everyone lives by rules. HAHAHAHAHA..okay my apologies for being in a weird mood and having hormones today. Anyway there is a thing as living by rules and then going way overboard. I love the Lord I have a relationship with Him, however I dont think I should have to justify what I wear or how I wear my hair or even what version of the bible I should use. I love the Lord I attend church, teach my children how much the Lord loves us the rest of the "rules" then happen or dont happen as God wills. JMHO

 

[EdSutton]

Citing Deut. 22:5 as a Biblical principle, concering the distinction to be made, is not "legalism."

Citing Ex. 28:42, which refers to specific garments for priests, and using that verse to argue against "women wearing pants" is "legalism."

Are you with me so far?

An inability to distinguish women's button-up style tops and slacks, at least most of them that I have ever seen, and the KEY® and Dickies® brands of work clothes that I normally wear, considering that I'm a farmer, is a good reason to suggest spending some considerable time with an eye-doctor, be they either a physical or a spiritual eye doctor, as the case may be.

BTW, I suggest that Ex. 28:42 is a good Biblical reason for everyone wearing 'trousers' (NKJV), or for all Baptists, anyway, since all believers are priests. (Rev. 1:6; 5:10) (BTW, the NKJV is the most 'Baptist' of all Bibles, even moreso that is the HCSB.) And since we are all now priests, in the dispensation of grace, we should all be wearing priest's attire!

Ed

 

[Salamander]

No one knows my Pastor so don't worry. You are very touchy, luckily, he is not. IN fact, we are working on this problem and he has gotten much better.

I've always admired sheep who can straighten out a shepherdraying:

SO if I say my Pastor is hung up on women's attire, I am defaming his character.
Yet you say men in general (meaning ALL men, including my pastor) are hung up on women in general, the whole package, then it's alright. You are defaming no one. Interesting reasoning.

Knowing the facts of manhood is not advanced theology.

I am sorry to hear that. I'll pray for you, even if you were joking.

So you're sorry my hang-up is my wife and think every Jezebel should be my hang-up also? I'm not hung-up on any Jezebel, I've learned to stick close to my wife when they approach. She can give a very threatening glare.

BTW, I did notice you like to see things through as with blinders on.

 

[Salamander]

Something we can agree on, finally :thumbs:

I never said that, so the accusation of naive is a little strange. You put it a much different way, go back and read your post.

It is naive to think women do not dress to gain the attention of men.

So you are saying that a man with self-control is not really a man? Btw, what is manhood? It's an interesting term which sounds more secular than biblical, it's used often to push the gay agenda here, I know that.

Um, is this an admission of yours?

I really don't care to be bothered by that anymore.
I am too old for that now. I ride bikes with many women (and men) you would probably consider fit and good looking, and they are just friends. We have no problems whatsoever, but they exercise and eat right so their hormones aren't going bonkers at me. Try exercise if you have trouble, works for me.

Lost your natural affection, huh?

You have revealed something here and it is not Biblical but is ecumenical to the rotten core.

Sensuality doesn't "bother" me in your definition, but to think you're too old?:laugh: That goes against some of the sayings of the godliest men I have ever known.

You seem to be idolizing bodily excercise here and it does profit little.

I can admit that some men carry themselves in a way that should be attractive to women, but to think I see them as fit and good looking? GET REAL!

I DON'T think women who are muscular are attractive at all! I hate the appearance of manliness in any woman. I don NOT worship the physique of any being.

 

[Salamander]

Legalism places too much importance on rules making them the foundation of faith. Legalism says that morality is defined by the conformity to rules that are absolute, universal and without exception. Legalism results in people becoming rigid, arbitary, unloving and irrational.

The opposite of legalism is antinomianism which teaches that there are no absolute, objective or binding rules. This understanding can lead to moral relativism or moral license. Existentialism, nihilism, emotivism, situationism and hedonism result from antinomianism.

And you sound like the victim of all the "isms".

Attire and sensuality go with one another when desire is revealed contrary to godliness.

Attire and godliness go together when God is desired and is then revealed by the wish to not be sensual to a general audience.

 

[Salamander]

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters" Romans 14:1

Accept him for what purpose? To compromise with his weakness or to strengthen his faith?

Strengthen his faith!

Imho, even legalists deserve this.

Although when legalism goes so far as teaching heresay despite the fact the Preacher/Teacher knows better, then imo, they are probably not a Christian.

Sounds like 20 x two by four vision to me!

Wide is the path to destruction, narrow is the gate to eternal life and few will find it.

One example: Churches who preach against dancing. Some may teach dancing is sin while full well knowing David danced for the Lord (2 Samuel 6:14) and the Lord was pleased. In fact, it may be dangerous to be legalistic and criticize people serving the lord as David's wife did. She despised his dancing the for the Lord and was never able to have children after that.

The reason she never had children was her perversion of judgement.

David's dance was as a young lamb who frolicked in the pasture filled with zeal and excitement. This is a perfect example against the sensual way most like to dance.

David was rejoicing over the return of the Ark of the Covenant, not performing before an audience or exhibiting his bodily reaction to music.

Perversion of judgement makes the same mistakes you have just verbalized.

 

[Salamander]

I am amazed that God even allows me near himself, much less that he should allow me to have a tiny part in his work. I let Him answer for me for the fruit is His regardless of how they may come to Him- humanly speaking.

They only come the BIBLE way or do not come to Him at all.:godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

So, salamander, let me see if I understand you correctly:

If my pastor dresses like the rest of the men around here, in jeans and western shirts, that is equal to transvestite behavior?

You understand very little to think that.

If I use the NIV in witnessing to my oil field worker neighbor, that is equal to behaving like a homosexual?

If that's your desire may God help you!

So you are saying all manner of dress save 1955 middle class white american is sinful?

So far you are the only one seting a timeline.

If using modern language copies of the scripture is sinful, would that not mean the reformers were wrong to translate it into their language for the common man? So isn't the KJV wrong to use by that reasoning?

You preconceive many things without making use of sound reason.

 

[Salamander]

I love people that try and say being legalistic is ok and then they justify the 2000 "rules" saying everyone lives by rules. HAHAHAHAHA..okay my apologies for being in a weird mood and having hormones today. Anyway there is a thing as living by rules and then going way overboard. I love the Lord I have a relationship with Him, however I dont think I should have to justify what I wear or how I wear my hair or even what version of the bible I should use. I love the Lord I attend church, teach my children how much the Lord loves us the rest of the "rules" then happen or dont happen as God wills. JMHO

Overboard? Going overboard requires a definite action that either represents loss of control or intentional throwing onesself over.

Standards are to incite self-control. I would have to say then that they are guidelines and not mandates. Mandates would make it legalism, but then high standards are preventative measures.

 

[Salamander]

Totally off topic comment deleted

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Okay, enough one sided barrage posting.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Thread reopened after an explanation by the poster.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I would have to say then that they are guidelines and not mandates. Mandates would make it legalism, but then high standards are preventative measures.

A lot of sense in this statement, especially if even our guidelines are Bible based. Otherwise they are nothing more than opinions.

There is a catch all phrase for non-Bible based guidelines -"Abstain from all appearance of evil." Those who use "abstain from all appearance of evil" for this purpose err in two ways, IMHO.

One, the idea in the verse is that we abstain every time evil appears.

Secondly, even if this meant to "abstain every time anything that appears like it might be evil appears" we cannot use our opinion of what appears to be evil as the plumb line. We would have to use Bible principles.

 

[Goldie]

Galatians speaks about legalism and warns us not to put ourselves under the Law once again. Another word for legalism would be "Judaizer", but there are many other words used to describe legalism as well.

In this instance, some of the Jews were teaching that Christians should not only be saved by faith alone, but that it was also necessary to keep or observe the Law of Moses in order to be saved which equates to faith + good works.

 

[EdSutton]

Legit question?? I don't Think so!

Are you a communist?

FTR, I have absolutely no intention of ' "answering" any "'so-called' question" " '

about something that is, in no way, germane to anything I posted in this, now re-opened, thread.

Not to mention the implied aspersions cast, by the question.

Ed

 

[stilllearning]

Hi everyone

I am back from vacation, and found that a lot has been said in my absence.

And I am learning a lot.
--------------------------------------------------
The main point of this post, was to point out....
“the hidden dangers of legalism”

One of which is: the Christian who adopts the extra-Biblical standards of others, may not be actually doing anything wrong;
-But they will simply stop growing spiritually!-

And 10 years later, will be at the same stage of spiritual growth, that they were at before.
--------------------------------------------------
Here is another hidden danger.........

A while back, we had a missionary on deputation, come to our Church, who had been born in Soma, and came to the states, and the LORD had called him back to Soma, as a missionary.

He really loved the Lord, and did a good job behind the pulpit;
And later at lunch, we were talking, and the subject of “lava lava’s” came up. And he shared how some pastors/Churches, had refused to support him, when they learned that he was going to be wearing one, on the field.

We thought that this was ridicules.

In Soma, if a man wears pants, he is calling those who don’t, “less than men”!
--------------------------------------------------
This is a good example of how legalism, can get out of hand.


Note: “Lava lava” (A Polynesian, especially Samoan, garment consisting of a rectangular piece of printed cotton tied loosely around the waist.)

 

[Crabtownboy]

On the lava lava. It is like the early missionaries insisting that the Hawaiians put on wool clothing in the winter. You know how terrible those winters are in Hawaii, right?

 

[Salamander]

FTR, I have absolutely no intention of ' "answering" any "'so-called' question" " '

about something that is, in no way, germane to anything I posted in this, now re-opened, thread.

Not to mention the implied aspersions cast, by the question.

Ed

Asking some one for clarification to a comment made that we all should be wearing robes is not an asperation.:laugh:

 

[Salamander]

Hi everyone

I am back from vacation, and found that a lot has been said in my absence.

And I am learning a lot.
--------------------------------------------------

Good, life is a learning experience.

The main point of this post, was to point out....
“the hidden dangers of legalism”

One of which is: the Christian who adopts the extra-Biblical standards of others, may not be actually doing anything wrong;
-But they will simply stop growing spiritually!-

That is definitely the wrong conclusion. I have seen many who dogmatically hold to a strict standard of dress who previously "attacked" anyone who came into their church fro not dressin "appropiately" grow into very hospitable Christians after losing their own children due to that hateful attitude.

And 10 years later, will be at the same stage of spiritual growth, that they were at before.
--------------------------------------------------

An erroneous judgement call if I have ever seen one!

Here is another hidden danger.........

A while back, we had a missionary on deputation, come to our Church, who had been born in Soma, and came to the states, and the LORD had called him back to Soma, as a missionary.

He really loved the Lord, and did a good job behind the pulpit;
And later at lunch, we were talking, and the subject of “lava lava’s” came up. And he shared how some pastors/Churches, had refused to support him, when they learned that he was going to be wearing one, on the field.

We thought that this was ridicules.

In Soma, if a man wears pants, he is calling those who don’t, “less than men”!
--------------------------------------------------

Describe to us what happens when this flies up during a sudden wind?

This is a good example of how legalism, can get out of hand.


Note: “Lava lava” (A Polynesian, especially Samoan, garment consisting of a rectangular piece of printed cotton tied loosely around the waist.)

Seems more of a compromise to the standard of the natives than adherence to modest apparel.

I would have to conlcude that wearing a lava lava would be subjecting to the leaglist attitude of the native culture and embarrassing if the wind hit just right for me and them!:laugh:

That which is hidden under the lava lava would best be hidden by my pants.:sleeping_2:

Some good friends of mine were missionaries to US Somoa, the Shifletts. The natives tried to sone their children to death and they had to run for protection of the US Consulate. Talking about the hidden dangers opf legalism!