I. Legalism: Defined

[gdemoss]

And so it goes. Judging those who judge others. Romans 2. None who do so will escape the judgment of God.

You won't escape the judgment even if you don't judge others. This is something I find funny. People go around thinking they can live however they want, but so long as they don't judge others, all is well with their soul. Lets suppose that a person starts a thread and asks if it is a sin to commit fornication? Then someone posts scripture showing it is a vile sin in the sight of God. Next, a fornicator comes in here and attacks the person who posted the scripture and calls them a judge. They ask why it is they feel the need to control their behavior, and why they attack their freedom in Christ to be happy sleeping around? That is what I see happening. You have someone ask a question about the right or wrong of something, and if anyone dares to call sin sin, they are a judge.

Butero, this is not what I said. If one comes to you asking if something is sin and you provide them with scripture that they understand that what they are doing is sin, you have not judged them, the word has judged them. The judgment takes place in their hearts through their conscience. What I was referring to is the personal judgments that are made one judging the other using the bible as their bases for their own personal judgment of the one being judged. There is a big difference there.

[gdemoss]

And so it goes. Judging those who judge others. Romans 2. None who do so will escape the judgment of God.

You won't escape the judgment even if you don't judge others. This is something I find funny. People go around thinking they can live however they want, but so long as they don't judge others, all is well with their soul. Lets suppose that a person starts a thread and asks if it is a sin to commit fornication? Then someone posts scripture showing it is a vile sin in the sight of God. Next, a fornicator comes in here and attacks the person who posted the scripture and calls them a judge. They ask why it is they feel the need to control their behavior, and why they attack their freedom in Christ to be happy sleeping around? That is what I see happening. You have someone ask a question about the right or wrong of something, and if anyone dares to call sin sin, they are a judge.

Butero, this is not what I said. If one comes to you asking if something is sin and you provide them with scripture that they understand that what they are doing is sin, you have not judged them, the word has judged them. The judgment takes place in their hearts through their conscience. What I was referring to is the personal judgments that are made one judging the other using the bible as their bases for their own personal judgment of the one being judged. There is a big difference there.

Lets suppose that I go to church with a person who sleeps around (fornicates) on a regular basis. I know this is the case. Are you saying it is wrong for me to take note of that and judge what they are doing as sin? I don't want to misrepresent anything you said or meant, so that is why I am asking you this follow up question? If I did take you wrong, I apologize. I am just trying to find out where you are coming from?

When you ask "is it wrong for you to take note of that and judge what they are doing as sin?" what does your judgment 'look' like in your actions? Or is it just discernment type of judgment where you have mentally noted that they are in sin? The depth and weight of the term judgment is far to broad and therefore there is always a need for understanding what it means to judge. We are ordered to both judge and to refrain from judging in scripture. Scripture is clear as to how 'the church' as a whole is to 'judge' such a one as an unrepentant fornicator within the midst of it. Scripture is also clear as to how we are to approach one who is overtaken in a fault for the purpose of restoring such a one.

Herein is where the difference in 'judgment' lies. The first covenant with God contained laws in ordinances that were to be used to bind those in the covenant and execute judgment upon transgressors while also providing a sacrifice for sin committed every year. There were those who were given the task of mediating the covenant and doling out judgment. Jesus took this power away from man as he nailed the law to his cross and the power of executing judgment was given solely to God and the curse of the law removed. Therefore it is the task of the church to give unrepentant sinners over unto the devil for the punishment of the flesh and not for them to stone the person themselves. They are to purge out the leaven.

We are not called to be judges of the law but doers and by that I mean the law of Christ and not that of Moses. By being a doer of the law of Christ, one shines the light of the love of Christ unto those around them and condemns the actions of them through their own personal obedience and not through governing over them. This principle is seen in Noah and the ark and spoken of directly in Hebrews. We are not governors of our brethren who are sent to judge the wicked but are light bearers through obedience to the law of Christ ourselves speaking the truth in love unto others and leaving the wrath of God to be revealed from heaven against all who hold the truth in unrighteousness.

I hope this helps.

[Sevenseas]

And so it goes. Judging those who judge others. Romans 2. None who do so will escape the judgment of God.

ironic, no?

[gdemoss]

And so it goes. Judging those who judge others. Romans 2. None who do so will escape the judgment of God.

ironic, no?

It is something that I have been seeking to ferociously remove from my life from the day I began to understand my guilt in it. You are one who has posted about the perfect defense against such being love as I recall.

[Sevenseas]

Gary I have no problem discussing sin in a general sense as Neb brought it up...and the sins she mentioned are quite prevalent among Christians. I disagree that any judgement is being

passed on any person. If that were so, then any time a pastor speaks to his congregation and brings up the matters mentioned here, then he is judging the congregation.

No...I am sorry but telling me that I am the one that posted love as a defense against sin (if you are referring to my personal anecdote in this thread I will tell you that you cheapen it)

is pulling down the blinds on the fact that I could only know that from scripture.

I never said I arrived. However, I have dealt with the sin of gossip and have been dealt with by the Lord severely because I would not listen...not recently.

I think you may be over-spiritualizing...a person can go too far in either direction....either holding to the law or making everything mysterious and over spiritual. I don't care for either

Forgive me if I have misunderstood you...it seems we either get along or bash heads. I do not mean to hurt you.

[Fez]

Perhaps this will explain what I think, is the difference between the law and grace, and where they meet, in words of a person much better equipped than I to explain. (It is in old English, but stick with it, the message is great). It is an extract from one of Spurgeon's preaches.

An extract from John Bunyan’s famous allegory with regard to the law and grace:

"Then the Interpreter took Christian by the hand and led him into a very large parlour that was full of dust, because never swept; in which after he had reviewed it a little while, the Interpreter called for a man to sweep. Now, when he began to sweep, the dust became so abundantly to fly about, that Christian had almost therewith been choked.

Then said Interpreter to a damsel that stood by, 'Bring hither water, and sprinkle the room'; the which when she had done, it was swept and cleansed with pleasure. Then said Christian, 'What means this?' The Interpreter answered, 'This parlour is the heart of a man that was never sanctified by the sweet grace of the gospel. The dust is his original sin and inward corruptions that have defiled the whole man.

He that began to sweep, at first, is the law; but she that brought the water and did sprinkle it, is the gospel. Now, whereas thou sawest that as soon as the first began to sweep, the dust did so fly about, that the room could not by him be cleansed, but that thou wast almost choked therewith; this is to show thee, that the law, instead of cleansing the heart (by its working) from sin, doth revive, Romans 7:9, put strength into, 1 Corinthians 15:56, and increase it in the soul, Romans 5:20, even as it doth discover and forbid it, for that doth not give power to subdue.

Again, as thou sawest the damsel sprinkle the room with water, upon which it was cleansed with pleasure; this is to show thee, that when the gospel comes in the sweet and precious influences thereof to the heart, then, I say, even as thou sawest the damsel lay the dust by sprinkling the floor with water, so is sin vanquished and subdued, and the soul made clean, through the faith of it, and consequently fit for the King of glory to inhabit.'"

[gdemoss]

Gary I have no problem discussing sin in a general sense as Neb brought it up...and the sins she mentioned are quite prevalent among Christians. I disagree that any judgement is being

passed on any person. If that were so, then any time a pastor speaks to his congregation and brings up the matters mentioned here, then he is judging the congregation.

No...I am sorry but telling me that I am the one that posted love as a defense against sin (if you are referring to my personal anecdote in this thread I will tell you that you cheapen it)

is pulling down the blinds on the fact that I could only know that from scripture.

I never said I arrived. However, I have dealt with the sin of gossip and have been dealt with by the Lord severely because I would not listen...not recently.

I think you may be over-spiritualizing...a person can go too far in either direction....either holding to the law or making everything mysterious and over spiritual. I don't care for either

Forgive me if I have misunderstood you...it seems we either get along or bash heads. I do not mean to hurt you.

My dear sister L, when we 'bash heads' I believe it is merely due to communication because I believe that we largely agree in many areas. I never have heard you say that you have arrived, that is for certain. I can also see where I can be viewed as one who 'over' spiritualize things as I lean heavily in that direction. I am not sure where I recalled receiving your words as love being an answer to sin, it is just how I perceived something you once said and that stuck with me. Sometimes the messenger doesn't realize the message has been my experience. Other times the receiver misunderstands the message. Either way no harm done.

[Sevenseas]

OK...thank you Gary. Letting go of this one now..have a good rest of the day

[Sevenseas]

As this thread is about defining legalism, I though this a very good observation:

a legalist is: Divisive: You spend concerted effort trying to convince other people that your interpretation of God’s Word is correct, often leading to quarrels over words or disputing. You love to stir up controversy, accuse other people of sin, and paint people with a broad brush of condemnation. You believe that divisions must exist in order to show who is approved by God.

full article

[GoldenEagle]

Also interesting...

Legalism:

1. Always adds something to the gospel

2. Is noted by an overemphasis on performance

3. Always erects boundaries between people

4. Creates an atmosphere that is pervaded by judgmentalism

5. Its concerns are almost always good things

6. Often goes beyond the Bible to protect the Bible

7. Often has a reverse logic: If I don't break the law, then I am righteous.

See: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/03/11/legalism-old-and-new-perspectives/