I. Legalism: Defined

[GoldenEagle]


I again want to point out that I didn't come into any of these threads to attack clothing, but to defend people being attacked for being legalists. Pants were just an example. If it is wrong for a man to wear a dress, so much so that Concerned Women For America condemned a book promoting it, it is wrong for women to wear pants. The greater point is that Jesus taught us we should keep and teach the least commandments, legalism.


Sorry Butero I strongly disagree that Jesus was an advocate of legalism. Perhaps you missed this from post #27?

What is legalism?

Link: http://dictionary.re...se/legalism?s=t

Legalism defined:

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.

Legalism is strict adherence to the letter rather than the spirit of the law. In theology it is the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works. Lastly, it is the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws. There is nothing good about this kind of theology. Perhaps you're trying to say something else?

Jesus was not legalistic. He healed on the Sabbath. He ate with sinners and tax collectors. He purposefully and openly ignored the Scribes and Pharisees rules.







Butero said, "The greater point is that Jesus taught us we should keep and teach the least commandments, legalism."


I thoroughly disagree. In that statement Jesus was mocking the priests and Pharisees, who had concocted all sorts of "commandments" to make themselves look good at the expense of their neighbor. As evident throughout the OT and NT, brake any commandment and all are broken; there are no least and greater commandments.



I am referring to Matt 5:17-20. It is plain to see Jesus was promoting legalism, and his criticisms of the Pharisees was their refusal to follow the law, and make up traditions to make the law null and void. There are some sins greater than others. Ever heard the term, "sins unto death?" Jesus said there were two great commandments. You are wrong on this.


Once again I find myself agreeing with Numenian here.

In context Matthew 5:20 Jesus was telling people that their righteousness had to exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. But before that in verse 19 Jesus tells his listeners that if they break one commandment they are guilty of all. This was pointing to all those who were listening’s need for a Savior – Messiah. Jesus was showing them and us our need for a Savior. In no way was Jesus saying that we should keep all the law. We’re unable to do so because we’re not perfect we cannot keep the whole law and therefor we cannot save ourselves.

Matt. 5:17-20

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 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.

[GoldenEagle]

But let's look at another passage shall we? How about Luke 11:37-54. Steven Cole has a good paper on the subject. See below.

WHY JESUS HATES LEGALISM

By: Steven J. Cole

http://www.fcfonline.org/content/1/sermons/041199m.pdf

Luke 11:37-54

{Highlights and selections from Cole’s paper.}

Legalism is an attempt to gain favor with God or to impress our fellow man by doing certain things (or avoiding other things), without regard to the condition of our hearts before God.

Jesus hates legalism because it does not deal with the condition of our hearts before God.

Remember, Jesus hates legalism because it does not deal with the condition of our sinful hearts before God. But Jesus loves grace, because it is by His grace that He transforms sinners into saints who love God and who love others.

Jesus (11:39) confronted the Pharisees with the fact that although they went to great lengths to clean their cups and platters, they neglected to cleanse their hearts, which were full of robbery and wickedness. The Pharisees despised those who were openly sinful, but God looks not only at the outward person, but also on the heart.

In Luke 11:37-41 we have the set- ting and overall theme, that legalism puts the emphasis on the external to the neglect of the internal. Then, in 11:42-44 Jesus pronounces three woes on the Pharisees in which He sets forth some of the specific problems with legalism.

1. The first woe: Legalism majors on minors and minors on majors (11:42).

2. The second woe: Legalism focuses on self-glory (11:43).

3. The third woe: Legalism subtly corrupts others (11:44).

4. The fourth woe: Legalism burdens people with peripheral commandments (11:46).

5. The fifth woe: Legalism dodges the personal application of God’s holiness, but pretends outwardly to honor it (11:47-51).

6. The sixth woe: Legalism misses the true knowledge of God and misleads those who seek to know Him (11:52).

Conclusion:

Remember, Jesus hates legalism because it does not deal with the condition of our sinful hearts before God. But Jesus loves grace, because it is by His grace that He transforms sinners into saints who love God and who love others.

Your thoughts?

[Farmgal]

I posted this in another thread, but that thread was locked...

Improper use of the law is the misunderstanding the law has been done away with, that it is no more, which is not true.

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid yea, we establish the law.

So how are we supposed to establish it, if we think it's disappeared and we are no longer adhering to it?

Jesus told us the law and the prophets are hung on loving God and your neighbor as yourself. If you love God and others, when you do this and you look at the law, we can see how the requirements of the law are met (in us through Christ). We are told to love as God loves, there is no other way to do this, but abide in Christ, and inner workings of Him, through Him we are able to establish the law in us, it is fulfilled in us and by His grace we are able to live it out perfectly.

Jesus said those who love God will keep His commandments. We love by obeying.

It is all about BOTH the law and grace, you can not have one without the other, the law establishes the standard, grace is the empowerment we are given to get there.

The pendulum swinging too far either way is wrong. Who needs grace when the law is the measuring stick and not just the law, but every

bondage that Jesus died to break us out of

You are free to observe anything you want. I must have had a wonderful childhood because I had to come to this forum to find out how

unreasonable legalism is and that those who measure the heart by the length of the skirt seem to think that those who do not agree

with them, are fair game and perhaps even unloved by God

I have read a number of articles by people who have left congregations like that and they thank God to be free of them

I don't see any point in going over your post in response because the question is settled for me and I don;t know if you are actually

questioning or trying to convince me to see things your way

You should know I have already done my time in an abusive ministry and I know the signs and I know how people talk

and I want nothing to do with any of it

I really have nothing to add to anything because I don't agree with your position or reasoning and I guess I was

overly hopeful when I though we had something to agree on

Legalism is a very real and I am afraid very dead subject

The problem for you is, everything I have said is scriptural and you chose to ignore the scripture I have provided and doing exactly what was stated earlier about when people walk the walk, they are deemed legalistic. If that is the case, Jesus was legalistic in your opinion.

You have never, not once, commented on this scripture:

Romans 8:4 the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us

Can you please explain what this means if the law is no longer in existance?

You also have chosen to ignore this verse all I have gotten is "IMO", we should not be concerned about another's opinions, we should be concerned about what God's Word says.

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid yea, we establish the law.

Please, again, explain why "we establish the law" when the law is no longer available. I am not speaking of living "under the law" as a Judaizer as I have pointed out to you prior to this post.

Also ignored were the commandments Jesus gave us, and in these two commandments, through grace we are able to fulfill it (as stated in Romans 8:4)

Love the Lord God with all of your heart, mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself.

We are able to love as he loved (Ephesians 5:2) by abiding in Christ (please read John 15 - all of it), as we abide in Christ we are able to fulfill the law (again as stated in Romans 8:4). It also explains that apart from Him, we can do nothing, which brings us to:

Matthew 19:26 with man this is not possible, but All things are possible with God.

Where one is walking in the Spirit, there is love, it is not legalism, it is what God has said in His Word.

Farmgal, I have enjoyed reading your posts. They are by far the most sound comments I have encountered in any of these threads on legalism. While it is possible that you may not agree with everything I have said, and I might not agree with every view you hold, unlike some, I fully understand your position, and can see you have an understanding of scripture. I don't see how anyone can accuse you of taking scriptures out of their context to suit your purposes? What you have said is sound.

Thanks Butero, my experience on forums is that people look beyond scripture so they can hang onto their denominational beliefs and then accuse of taking scripture out of context, I could post the entire chapter of where the verse is found, but that wouldn't do any good either.

[Farmgal]

But let's look at another passage shall we? How about Luke 11:37-54. Steven Cole has a good paper on the subject. See below.

WHY JESUS HATES LEGALISM

By: Steven J. Cole

http://www.fcfonline...ons/041199m.pdf

Luke 11:37-54

{Highlights and selections from Cole’s paper.}

Legalism is an attempt to gain favor with God or to impress our fellow man by doing certain things (or avoiding other things), without regard to the condition of our hearts before God.

Jesus hates legalism because it does not deal with the condition of our hearts before God.

Remember, Jesus hates legalism because it does not deal with the condition of our sinful hearts before God. But Jesus loves grace, because it is by His grace that He transforms sinners into saints who love God and who love others.

Jesus (11:39) confronted the Pharisees with the fact that although they went to great lengths to clean their cups and platters, they neglected to cleanse their hearts, which were full of robbery and wickedness. The Pharisees despised those who were openly sinful, but God looks not only at the outward person, but also on the heart.

In Luke 11:37-41 we have the set- ting and overall theme, that legalism puts the emphasis on the external to the neglect of the internal. Then, in 11:42-44 Jesus pronounces three woes on the Pharisees in which He sets forth some of the specific problems with legalism.

1. The first woe: Legalism majors on minors and minors on majors (11:42).

2. The second woe: Legalism focuses on self-glory (11:43).

3. The third woe: Legalism subtly corrupts others (11:44).

4. The fourth woe: Legalism burdens people with peripheral commandments (11:46).

5. The fifth woe: Legalism dodges the personal application of God’s holiness, but pretends outwardly to honor it (11:47-51).

6. The sixth woe: Legalism misses the true knowledge of God and misleads those who seek to know Him (11:52).

Conclusion:

Remember, Jesus hates legalism because it does not deal with the condition of our sinful hearts before God. But Jesus loves grace, because it is by His grace that He transforms sinners into saints who love God and who love others.

Your thoughts?

Hi Goldeneagle,

I agree with the definition of legalism you provided.

There seems to be a problem with "works salvation" getting mixed up with obedience and the work God has prepared for us, which is not legalism at all, it is just loving the Lord God and our neighbor as ourselves, which, through Christ, is the fulfillment of the law. It's simple.

[Guest]

Thanks Butero, my experience on forums is that people look beyond scripture so they can hang onto their denominational beliefs and then accuse of taking scripture out of context, I could post the entire chapter of where the verse is found, but that wouldn't do any good either.

Amen~!

[Guest]

I believe legalism is trying to earn favor with God apart from the final work of Christ on the cross.

Amen~! Some Claim Christ By Faith Will First Save Them

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

But Then They Kick Him Out (Wipe The Blood Off)

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? Hebrews 10:29

So They Can Earn Their Sanctification

But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 2 Thessalonians 2:13

Unholy Joes And Ellens And Such

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. 2 Corinthians 11:4

~

Simply

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:3

Jesus

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 1 John 5:11-13

Believe

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:47

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[GoldenEagle]

My thoughts are that it all depends on what your definition of legalism is. According to my Websters Dictionary, it simply means strict adherence to the law. That is exactly what Jesus said we should do. He said we should keep and teach people to follow the least commandments. You may not agree with that, and may think Jesus didn't mean what he said, or he was being sarcastic, but I disagree, and will continue to disagree with you. At that time, they were under the entire law. Why would Jesus teach people to violate the law? It doesn't even make sense.

So this is your definition of legalism? Funny, nobody else on the thread has agreed with you. Are you saying or implying that the rest of us who disagree with you on your definition are wrong or cannot see the truth? Please clarify.

Even Farmgal (see quote below), who you say has the most sound comments on the thread (also see quote below), has agreed that legalism isn’t’ a very good thing to be involved with.

As Christians we should have sound Biblical doctrine. Yes. Should we be involved with legalism? (Legalism is strict adherence to the letter rather than the spirit of the law. In theology it is the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works. Lastly, it is the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws. There is nothing good about this kind of theology.) Please provide more (as what you've quoted didn't support your stance from my perspective see post #132) Biblical evidence that Jesus was legalistic and we as Christ-followers should be legalistic.

Hi Goldeneagle,

I agree with the definition of legalism you provided.

There seems to be a problem with "works salvation" getting mixed up with obedience and the work God has prepared for us, which is not legalism at all, it is just loving the Lord God and our neighbor as ourselves, which, through Christ, is the fulfillment of the law. It's simple.

Farmgal, I have enjoyed reading your posts. They are by far the most sound comments I have encountered in any of these threads on legalism. While it is possible that you may not agree with everything I have said, and I might not agree with every view you hold, unlike some, I fully understand your position, and can see you have an understanding of scripture. I don't see how anyone can accuse you of taking scriptures out of their context to suit your purposes? What you have said is sound.

Interesting too that you use a dictionary definition that is over 100 years old. I wonder how many other dictionaries still define the term legalism in this way you are attempting to define it?

http://www.webster-d...nition/legalism

Webster's 1913 Dictionary

Le´gal`ism n.

1. Strictness, or the doctrine of strictness, in conforming to law.

Perhaps there's a reason nobody will agree to your definition? Numenian and I don't always agree. But even he cannot agree with you? Question: Have you ever admitted on the WCF board that you're wrong theologically speaking in some concept, word, or action? Or perhaps that even though you don't agree with a particular position of a brother or sister in Christ they have the freedom in Christ to disagree with you rather than just be plain wrong? Curious.

Butero said, "The greater point is that Jesus taught us we should keep and teach the least commandments, legalism."

I thoroughly disagree. In that statement Jesus was mocking the priests and Pharisees, who had concocted all sorts of "commandments" to make themselves look good at the expense of their neighbor. As evident throughout the OT and NT, break any commandment and all are broken; there are no least and greater commandments.

[GoldenEagle]

Butero, I checked and this section of the post was completely ignored and evaded. Please respond to Matt. 5:17-20 and my comment about the context/subject of this passage regarding verse 20. What is your take? Do you agree or disagree?







Butero said, "The greater point is that Jesus taught us we should keep and teach the least commandments, legalism."

I thoroughly disagree. In that statement Jesus was mocking the priests and Pharisees, who had concocted all sorts of "commandments" to make themselves look good at the expense of their neighbor. As evident throughout the OT and NT, brake any commandment and all are broken; there are no least and greater commandments.


I am referring to Matt 5:17-20. It is plain to see Jesus was promoting legalism, and his criticisms of the Pharisees was their refusal to follow the law, and make up traditions to make the law null and void. There are some sins greater than others. Ever heard the term, "sins unto death?" Jesus said there were two great commandments. You are wrong on this.


Once again I find myself agreeing with Numenian here.

In context Matthew 5:20 Jesus was telling people that their righteousness had to exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. But before that in verse 19 Jesus tells his listeners that if they break one commandment they are guilty of all. This was pointing to all those who were listening need for a Savior – Messiah. Jesus was showing them and us our need for a Savior. In no way was Jesus saying that we should keep all the law. We’re unable to do so because we’re not perfect we cannot keep the whole law and therefore we cannot save ourselves.

Matt. 5:17-20

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 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.

[GoldenEagle]

The greater point is that Jesus taught us we should keep and teach the least commandments, legalism.

See posts #131 and 132 as to your statement that Christ was legalistic. But I’ll ask it again. How can you say Jesus was teaching legalism as per your definition? Butero, did Jesus really say that we were to strictly adhere to the law? Didn’t he say people were more concerned with the letter rather than the spirit of the law? Was that a good thing? I’m curious though.

Please respond to these three points. In particular I'm interested in your response to John 8:1-12.

1. Jesus ignored the legalistic (and some ceremonial) laws of the Scribes and Pharisees.

Matt. 9:1-8 Perhaps the Scribes and Pharisees didn’t understand the law? Jesus healed a paralytic and forgave the man of his sins – something only God could do. The Scribes and Pharisees saw this as blasphemy. As Christians how do we respond to this?

Mat.. 5:14-17 Jesus didn’t force His disciples to fast. The Scribes and Pharisees didn’t understand this. As Christians how do we respond to this?

Matt. 15:1-20 The Scribes and Pharisees came to Jesus and asked Him why His disciples transgressed the tradition of the elders by not washing their hands when they ate bread. Jesus in turn asked them why the Scribes and Pharisees disobeyed the commandment of God due to tradition. Basically the Scribes and Pharisees had a habit of setting aside a portion of their money to go to the Lord. Bu the heart issue wasn’t they wanted to honor God but instead wash their hands of the responsibility they had toward caring for their parents. They neglected taking responsibility and caring for their parents as commanded in Ex. 20:12, Deut. 5:16, and Ex. 21:17. As Christians how do we respond to this?

John 8:1-12 A woman was caught in adultery. The law said she was to be stoned. This is a prime example of Jesus showing mercy. Jesus outwitted the Scribes and Pharisees by saying whoever was without sin could throw the first rock. Jesus saved the womans life, forgave her of her sins, and told her to not commit the same sin any longer. As Christians how do we respond to this?

2. Jesus associated and ate with sinners.

Matt. 9:10-13, Mark. 2:13-17, Luke 5:29-32 Jesus sat with sinners and ate with them. Jesus even called a tax collector, Matthew, to be His disciple. Jesus said he came for the sick (those who realized the law could not save them and they could not save themselves with “good works”) and not those had no need of doctor (those who followed the law and wanted to earn their salvation or keep it with “good works”). As Christians how do we respond to this?

3. Jesus healed on the Sabbath.

Mark 3:1-6 The Scribes and Pharisees had no answer for Jesus when asked if it was lawful to do good or save a life on the Sabbath. Jesus healed a man’s hand on the Sabbath and plotted how they might kill Him. As Christians how do we respond to this?

Luke 13:10-17 Jesus healed a woman who had been a spirit of infirmity for 18 years. Jesus had compassion on her and healed her. The ruler of the synagogue quoted that a person should not work (heal) on the Sabbath. Jesus called the ruler of the synagogue a hypocrite. You see the man (the ruler) was following the letter of the law and not the spirit. Isn’t it funny that Jesus adversaries were put to shame as he asked them if their donkey or ox was lost on the Sabbath if they would not seek after it? Jesus knew they would. Jesus just had a great way of saying things. As Christians how do we respond to this?

John 5:1-15 Jesus healed a man at the Pool of Bethesda. Some more religious Jews told a man he could not carry a bed on the Sabbath. (Later referred to Mishnah rules.) The Jews were disturbed that work had taken place on the Sabbath and wanted to the man to tell them who it was that healed him. As Christians how do we resond to this?

Conclusion: How can one claim Jesus was legalistic based on His actions?

Don't let them make you feel bad {Farmgal}. I can see you are not taking scriptures and just throwing them around to make them read like you want. I would suggest that is what some of them are doing, and when you challenge them, it becomes obvious they can't defend their position.

Okay I have defended my position Scripturally on numerous occasions. From my perspective you have simply ignored, dismissed, or evaded my questions or comments. Please answer the above points regarding Jesus being legalistic so we can continue the discussion.

Perhaps we should review the WCF ToS so we’re all on the same page. Myself included.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.

Abuse of other posters is not allowed. This includes, but is not limited to, name calling, insulting, harassing, threatening or in any way invading the privacy of another poster.

Debate the subject, not the person. It is possible to disagree about a doctrine or subject under discussion without insulting the person with whom you are debating. Also remember that the fact that a person disagrees with you does not mean they are attacking you as a person. Respect each other in the love of God! This is the main reason that threads get stopped, shut down, and even deleted! Users that cannot respect others will be banned. (Lev. 19:18)

In Christ and in keeping with the WCF ToS I ask the following: Please refrain from criticizing people indirectly or directly (saying numenian is just plain wrong in post #117 and mentioning sevenseas in your post to Farmgal for example in post # 130) and let’s focus on the subject of legalism. We’re here to discuss the topic and not any particular person would you agree?

[Farmgal]

Hey GoldenEagle,

I agreed with the definition you provided of legalism if it would stop there, but it does not stop there.

The bottom line is if you do not have works, you do not have faith - because we know faith without works is dead. A person who shows forth fruit - is an obedient person first and foremost, those who love the Lord will be obedient, in our obedience, God transforms us to the image of Christ. If we are not obedient, we do not love the Lord, we will not show forth fruit. Do you see the connection? There is our part of the covenant to uphold, we obey and DO the work God has prepared for us, is, like it or not, deemed legalistic and it's not.

If there is any indication what so ever that it appears we are trying to save ourselves by doing His work through obedience, people, in the feel good Christianity we have today, is deemed legalistic. Christianity is dying to ourselves on a daily basis, it is being slain by the cross, allowing our old man to die and the new creation come alive, this has been lost! We see people today who seem to believe after they "accept Christ" they are free to do whatever their hearts desire wants them to do, this is not salvation, it is not sanctification. A requirement of obedience through the love of the Lord is required, the only way to achieve this is abiding in Christ. Abiding is an action verb, faith is action, obedience is action, action on our part is considered legalistic in today's Christianity.

That's how I see it.