Prove it
-
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!
What is a legalist?
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
Prove it
How? Statistically? Let's start a poll.
Or, as I already offered....you look to justify your drinking by saying it is "to the glory of God". The passage is not concerned with drinking alcohol but of drinking what was offered to idols. Yet you strive to justify your enjoyment of Mikes via Scripture and books and apply the "rule" that you are drinking to God's glory. Once you decide that, anyone who argues against you must be closed minded because they are not considering the rule you found either in Scripture or the books you read. Legalism.
Or alcohol-ism.
Your mind has already been made.
About what? Alcohol? That's between you, your church and God...not me. Your legalism? Yep, I'm pretty much set on that one. But I don't hold that against you (I was just pointing it out).
Wjen our own preferences/convictions are elvated to the place where all need to do just as we do to be in will of God, legalism!
Well if a person is a true believer they do have a list of do's and don'ts. Scripture supplies us with them. So no that is not a legalist.
A person who uses only the KJV is also not a legalist nor someone who holds strictly to hymns.
A legalist is anyone who seeks the favor of God for salvation through works instead of grace through faith.
A legalist is anyone who seeks to get saved by doing things.
I recently wrote a short piece on why good deeds cannot save us.
If you have ever listened to someone preach or had someone talk to you about getting saved you might have heard them say that your good deeds cannot get you into heaven.
To be honest that is a difficult thing for most to receive because there has been people that do what we feel are very good things and perhaps we are not so bad ourselves.
Yes we can recognize that some certainly should go to hell, but when it comes perhaps to ourselves or some others, especially loved ones, we feel it would not be just for God to send those to hell.
So why would anyone say we cannot be good enough?
It is true that people can do some good deeds from a human perspective.
However the problem is that those deeds do not meet the standard of holiness which is God's standard.
The bible says this about our good deeds (righteousness).
Isaiah 64:6
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.
The Hebrew that is translated, unclean, filthy rags, is the same wording used for a woman’s menstrual cloth.
That is what is said about our good deeds and how God sees them. If our best is that bad just think what our sins are like to Him.
So if our best miss the mark then certainly our best cannot over come our sins so that we could ever expect favor from God
Consequently we have nothing to offer or draw us to God and that is why we need grace through faith upon repentance toward God.
So yes we will go to hell no matter how good we have been if we do not get saved the only way God has provided and scripture says it is a narrow way and few will find it, Mat 7:14.
Salvation takes repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Acts 20:21. Make no mistake. We cannot be a friend of Christ while remaining a rebel against God. The word repent, from the Greek word metanoia, means a change of mind or direction. It is not 50%, 75% or 99%. It is 100%. God is not interested in us almost repenting. It is like the command “about-face which is a 180 degree turn. When any person comes to the point in their life that they are broken over their sin to the point of being ready to get right with God no matter what it will cost them they are in a state/spirit of repentance toward God.
We then take that heart that we have toward God and place it on the Lord Jesus Christ, for there is no other name under heaven by which men must be saved, and that becomes faith. At that point God's grace through Christ is applied to us and we are saved, born again, and will never turn back into the practice of sinning. It is a repentance/faith that is lived daily and never turned from as we are kept in that state by the Spirit. Acts 20:21, 1John 2:19 and 1John 3:9,10.
Repentance of sin is the result of our salvation (new birth), and will be part of the sanctification process in our new life with Christ Eph. 2:10. While we may sin from time to time after being saved no one continues in the practice of sinning or returns to it after salvation 1John 3:9,10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JQOBMi4QS8&feature=youtu.be
I believe legalism not only infects someone's ideas about justification, but also *sanctification*. And that is what is primarily being discussed in this thread (Legalism regarding sanctification).
Legalism is us redefine how to get right and stay right with God!
I really don't think this thread will accomplish anything. Most people on the BB have their minds made up about what legalism is. I've been called a legalist over and over here simply for having high standards (which I impose on no one). But for what it's worth, here is a theological definition that I've given several times here:
“Legalism is a slavish following of the laws in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Christian Theology, 2nd ed., by SBC theologian Millard Erickson, p. 990).
And by the way, if legalism is simply having rules or standards, as some people here say, then every single one of the Baptist churches we go to is legalist, because they have lists of rules called constitutions.
“Legalism is a slavish following of the laws in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Christian Theology, 2nd ed., by SBC theologian Millard Erickson, p. 990).
And by the way, if legalism is simply having rules or standards, as some people here say, then every single one of the Baptist churches we go to is legalist, because they have lists of rules called constitutions.
I really don't think this thread will accomplish anything. Most people on the BB have their minds made up about what legalism is. I've been called a legalist over and over here simply for having high standards (which I impose on no one). But for what it's worth, here is a theological definition that I've given several times here:
“Legalism is a slavish following of the laws in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Christian Theology, 2nd ed., by SBC theologian Millard Erickson, p. 990).
And by the way, if legalism is simply having rules or standards, as some people here say, then every single one of the Baptist churches we go to is legalist, because they have lists of rules called constitutions.
Well, *legal**ism* would be reality if your "Standards" are higher than Biblical standards. (I don't know your standards, i'm just making a general statement)
I understand Law/Legal to mean something similar, but for sake of discussion (and what we see in reality) Law could be law given by man. Think of the Amish and their "Extra Laws"
In my humble opinion, there is a Line of Truth that Runs all the way through the Scriptures ----------------------- If you go above that line you are dwelling in legalism, even if it's only imposed on your self. If you go under the line, you are journeying in the world of liberalism. And regarding following "Laws", we also call them "rules," "standards", "principles" and if they are not clearly marked out in Scripture, i would be leery about following them. I follow the Lord Jesus and His Word. Just my $.02
Here's a standard which you might think (I don't know) goes above the Scriptural line: I will not preach in bars. The Bible never says that I shouldn't, and there are good men who do. But what your humble opinion is missing is the importance of the motive.
If my motive for the above standard is to be righteous, that is legalism and leads to a "holier than thou" attitude. If, however, I stay away from all bars because my grandfather was an alcoholic, and because my father taught me that, then I have a high standard which, though not taught in Scripture, has a very good motive: I'm afraid that drinking any booze will lead to me becoming an alcoholic like my grandfather and two uncles. (My Dad broke the mold and was a pastor.) Now, then, for you to then criticize my standard because it is not yours or not specifically found in Scripture would be judging me, and would then in and of itself be a sinful criticism.
Most legalists want to narrowly define the term and limit it to "working for salvation". This frees them to continue in their post-salvific legalism without feeling guilt.
When they adopt a set of extra-biblical man-made rules/interpretation and then say a person is "not right with God" unless they adopt your standards, this is the second phase of legalism. Not just working to gain salvation, but to keep salvation.
If someone follows xyz commands of Scripture, they are NOT legalistic. Neither are they legalistic to tell you that you, too, should follow Scriptures. Hey, I've been a pastor 47 years and that pretty much outlines what we do
But if I say I do (or more likely, don't do) some non-biblical matter and YOU must do them, I have moved from proclaiming the truth of God's Word into a man-made declaration that is actually going to harm my brother and sister.
When they adopt a set of extra-biblical man-made rules/interpretation and then say a person is "not right with God" unless they adopt your standards, this is the second phase of legalism. Not just working to gain salvation, but to keep salvation.
If someone follows xyz commands of Scripture, they are NOT legalistic. Neither are they legalistic to tell you that you, too, should follow Scriptures. Hey, I've been a pastor 47 years and that pretty much outlines what we do
But if I say I do (or more likely, don't do) some non-biblical matter and YOU must do them, I have moved from proclaiming the truth of God's Word into a man-made declaration that is actually going to harm my brother and sister.
I agree with your assertions (motive/convictions).
I don't see where your convictions of not going into a bar to preach is "above the line" since you are not actually using Scripture to Justify your actions. When i say "above the line" i mean a person actually takes a Verse or Passage and Adds meaning or content that is not actually there.
Okay, I see your point.
Dr. Bob, you've articulated well the scrambled up thoughts i had in my head lol. Nice post!Most legalists want to narrowly define the term and limit it to "working for salvation". This frees them to continue in their post-salvific legalism without feeling guilt.
When they adopt a set of extra-biblical man-made rules/interpretation and then say a person is "not right with God" unless they adopt your standards, this is the second phase of legalism. Not just working to gain salvation, but to keep salvation.
If someone follows xyz commands of Scripture, they are NOT legalistic. Neither are they legalistic to tell you that you, too, should follow Scriptures. Hey, I've been a pastor 47 years and that pretty much outlines what we do
But if I say I do (or more likely, don't do) some non-biblical matter and YOU must do them, I have moved from proclaiming the truth of God's Word into a man-made declaration that is actually going to harm my brother and sister.
Examples of legalism (not to EARN salvation but to KEEP right with God) that are NOT in the bible but rather man-made positions I have witnessed in 47 years of pastoral ministry:
- Hair length/style
- Clothing
- Music
- Abstinence v Temperance
- Jewelry
- Glasses
- Dance
- Movies
- Tobacco
- Language
- Attendance at church every time the doors are open
- Translations of God's Word
- Soul-winning/door-to-door evangelism
- Ecumenism
- Length of church services
- Wine/matzo for communion
- Color of carpeting
- Foods
- Exercise
- Disney
21. Open-toed shoes!
We worked in a large Christian organization and they would not allow open-toed shoes. Someone has a warped view of what is "sexy".
They also had rule about our college gals NOT wearing button up blouses (gaps?) and not wearing anything necklace longer than a choker, since it accentuates the female form. Of course gals had to wear culottes and hose too, or they were not "spiritual".
Patent-leather shoes have also been forbidden by some, because when a lady stands up, the shoes may reflect her underwear. Hey, you can't make this stuff up.
They also had rule about our college gals NOT wearing button up blouses (gaps?) and not wearing anything necklace longer than a choker, since it accentuates the female form. Of course gals had to wear culottes and hose too, or they were not "spiritual".
Patent-leather shoes have also been forbidden by some, because when a lady stands up, the shoes may reflect her underwear. Hey, you can't make this stuff up.
I agree. Except when I do it. Then it's just brotherly correction.