I. Legalism: Defined

[GoldenEagle]

I. First I always find it more productive to find some common ground with people. Especially when dealing with conflicting views. Don’t you think that is agreeable?

A. I agree God is love. (John 3:16, 1 John 4:9-12, John 13:34-35, Romans 5:8)

B. I agree God loves us. (Psalm 37:28, Proverbs 8:17, Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 John 3:1)

C. I agree nothing can separate us from God’s love (Rom. 8:37-39)

D. I agree we need to be sensitive to what the Holy Spirit teaches us through His Word. He primarily speaks to us through His Word which is good for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness. (2 Tim. 2:16-17)

E. I agree God uses other Believers to stretch us and grow us. (Prov. 27:17)

F. I agree sometimes we can do good things with good intentions with the wrong motivations. (Prov. 21:2, Matt. 6:1, Gal. 1:10, Phil 2:3)

G. I agree we, Christians, are ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor. 5:20) who should be known by our love for others. (John 13:35)

H. I agree we are citizens of Heaven as Christians (Phil. 3:20) passing through strange lands. (1 Pet. 2:11-12)

I. I agree we are to love God above all else (Matt. 22:37) and love our neighbors as ourselves. (Matt. 22:39)

Tinky / five / sevenseas / Butero/ other one / OneLight / gdemoss / joco / Monarchy / numenian We can all agree on all these points correct?

[Sevenseas]

Very good, sevenseas, good verses you bring to the table.

Thanks...the book of Galatians deals with this subject so thoroughly. As someone once pointed out, Paul always starts

his letters thanking God for the people he is sending the letter to

Galatians, is the only letter in which he does not thank God for the believers...obviously because of the seriousness of leaving

the simplicity of the gospel and trying to live by another gospel

[GoldenEagle]

Legalism has different meanings to different people. The Dictionary definition is a strict adherence to the law. Based on that definition, legalism is a good thing. Jesus would be considered legalistic if you go by that definition. Matthew 5:17-20

Sorry brother in Christ I’m going to respectfully disagree to this definition above in bold and the conclusion underlined.. The dictionary doesn’t just define legalism as simply the strict adherence to the law…

Also, Matt. 5:17-20 perhaps was in reference to righteousness under the law no? Perhaps for the purpose of showing the people that they needed a Savior to save them and no matter what they did of their own strength they could not save themselves? See verse 20.

Matt. 5:20

For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

II. Second as to the OP first question.

What is legalism?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legalism?s=t

noun

1. strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, especially to the letter rather than the spirit.

2. Theology .

a. the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works.

b. the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.

1. Jesus said he desired mercy not sacrifice in reference to following the spirit of the law rather than the letter. (Matt. 12:3-8) He then proceeded to heal on the Sabbath which was considered “work”. (Matt. 12:9-14)

2. Salvation is not gained through good works. (Eph 2:8-9)

3. People judge by the outward appearance but God judges the heart (motivation). (1 Sam. 16:7)

[GoldenEagle]

III. Third as to specifics.

Sevenseas - There is NO SALVATION in following rules or in DRESSING a certain way. There is salvation only in CHRIST

Butero - Salvation comes through faith in Christ, but true faith brings about a change in behavior and appearance. James says that faith without works is dead.

SS/Butero - Yes, I agree salvation is only through Christ. (John 14:6) I also agree that salvation makes us new creatures. (2 Cor. 5:17) However, this doesn’t mean we have to dress a certain way in order be considered saved or even set apart. Do you agree?

Personally, in context I believe that Rom. 10:3-4 is in regards to salvation not being through the law but through righteousness found in Christ. What do you guys think?

Rom. 10:3-4

³ For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. ⁴ For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

It seems like I read this post somewhere else, word for word?

I created a separate thread to specifically address the sub-topic of legalism. I mentioned that in the OP. While it has or may have to do with spiritual abuse it is a subject that warrants a separate thread do you agree?

See: http://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/157425-spiritual-abuse-defined-and-discussed/page__st__200#entry1876934

There probably won’t be a soap box debate. But eh maybe the mods will allow it. But I started a separate thread as a result of this discussion specifically on legalism. After all we do chase a lot of rabbit trails on this thread.

Enjoy!

And yet you have done just that, judging God's servants that are legalistic.

I agree we are not judge people’s motivation. But their action or fruit of their lives can be seen as Christ-centered (Gal 5:19-26) or self-centered (Gal 5:19-21). Would you agree?

Matt. 7:15-20

¹⁵ “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. ¹⁶ You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? ¹⁷ Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. ¹⁸ A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. ¹⁹ Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ²⁰ Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

But I suppose we should all keep in mind 2 Pet. 1:20.

[lesjude]

Here is Christ's explanation of "legalism":

Matthew 15:3-9

New King James Version (NKJV)

³ He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? ⁴ For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; ^[a] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’^[b]5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— ⁶ then he need not honor his father or mother.’^[c] Thus you have made the commandment^[d] of God of no effect by your tradition. ⁷ Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:

⁸ ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,

And^[e] honor Me with their lips,

But their heart is far from Me.

⁹And in vain they worship Me,

Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”

The length of a woman's hair, skirts or pants, makeup, etc are real issues but distractions from what Jesus says are the legalisms that prevent His disciples from having a mature Biblical relationship with Him. The Bible makes a sharp distinction between a child of God by the new birth, and a mature son/daugthter. These legalisms prevent the child from maturing.

[GoldenEagle]

Hold on. Time out. Seriously.

Let us remember humility, as Believers we are heirs of God with Christ. (Philippians 2:3; 1 Peter 5:5, Romans 8:17) Remember we are to seek restoration with a spirit of gentleness. (Galatians 6:1) We are to be kind and tenderhearted to one another. (Ephesians 5:32)

To Sevenseas, I have contacted the mod again about the Soap Box Debate. If you still wish to go forward with it, I am more than ready. I am not sure why I didn't get a response? It could be because of the storm? I just didn't want you to think I have backed away. I came here tonight prepared to do battle in the Soap Box, and came across this new thread.

Should we be doing battle with one another Butero? Or are we to remember to seek restoration with a spirit of gentleness? (Gal. 6.1)

This is an absolute lie.

This seems accusatory to me. What do you think Butero?

Who are YOU to judge someone elses' servant? To his OWN master he stands or falls

Typically when someone speaks in ALL CAPS it is interpreted as yelling. Was this written in a spirit of reconciliation or anger?

Butero ~ having had the pleasure in the thread on spiritual abuse, I really cannot take your responses as though they needed careful consideration from me

YOU are the person who has stated that it is an abomination for a woman to wear jeans, slacks or whatever

Statements like this:

This is an absolute lie

are not indicative of someone who actually wants to respond civilly or in a manner that suggests a true discussion.

Apart from that, you might not mean to, but you come across as very angry and I don't need that in my life

So thanks, but no thanks....and do feel free to castigate me from here to Mars. I truly do not care

Ironically, does this post seem angry to you Sevenseas? Should we not treat each other with brotherly love realizing we are all (who are Christians) heirs of God through Christ and God’s Holy Spirit lives in all of us (who are Christians). We cry out to God “Abba, Father!” (Gal. 4:6-7) Should we not care for others? (Matt. 22:39)

Gal. 4:6-7

⁶ And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” ⁷ Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Princes and Princesses... Heirs in Christ to the King of Kings! Wohoo!

So how about we focus on the issues in relation to God's Word and not on attacking people personally? Otherwise please feel free to find another thread. It would be much appreciated.

[Sevenseas]

Golden Eagle to Seven

Typically when someone speaks in ALL CAPS it is interpreted as yelling. Was this written in a spirit of reconciliation or anger?

If it were all caps I guess you might think that. However, I 'm not using all caps.......so therefore, kindly see below

I use caps often in my posts simply for emphasis...I also use heavy type for scripture for emphasis and or color

and sometimes italics

This is the example of my 'yelling' that you gave: Who are YOU to judge someone elses' servant? To his OWN master he stands or falls

The emphasis is on the word OWN and YOU, PLUS that is a verse of scripture

Sounds a tad niggly piggly to me?

My caps never seemed to bother you before? I shall keep using them...I'll let you know when I am actually yelling

[Sevenseas]

Golden Eagle to Seven:

Ironically, does this post seem angry to you Sevenseas?

No it doesn't. It reads like I don't want to deal with someone who sounds angry. Frankly, you actually wrote the EXACT SAME THING (I'm not yelling)

to the exact same person in yr thread on spiritual abuse

Ummm....I didn't put any words in bold...you did that..yes, I know, for emphasis but I wasn't emphasizing anything

in the post I wrote...which should have indicated my LACK of desire to engage

Should I hire a lawyer?

[GoldenEagle]

My caps never seemed to bother you before? I shall keep using them...I'll let you know when I am actually yelling

Okay gotcha. My mistake.

Golden Eagle to Seven:

Ironically, does this post seem angry to you Sevenseas?

No it doesn't. It reads like I don't want to deal with someone who sounds angry. Frankly, you actually wrote the EXACT SAME THING (I'm not yelling)

to the exact same person in yr thread on spiritual abuse

Ummm....I didn't put any words in bold...you did that..yes, I know, for emphasis but I wasn't emphasizing anything

in the post I wrote...which should have indicated my LACK of desire to engage

Should I hire a lawyer?

No lawyer needed. Perhaps I'm just edgy due to my perception (and it could be unfounded I admit) that whether through my own rabitt trails or others rabitt trails the threads I start tend to get off subject. I would just like to focus on the issue not our percieved personal differences in the thread.

Perhaps it's just human nature.

I didn't mean to offend I just don't want the thread closed. Please accept my apology. Forgive me?

[Sevenseas]

I didn't mean to offend I just don't want the thread closed. Please accept my apology. Forgive me?

Ok..... .....I can sometimes be...a bit... but I really did not think so this time