I. Legalism: Defined

[Sevenseas]

I have already posted the scripture, but will do so again, the law has not disappeared as you are so trying to "get rid of it".

Romans 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Uh huh....but ONLY if we do not walk according to the flesh, what do you think legalism is?

Christ fulfilled the law...we never could....legalism is ADDING to the perfect work of Christ on the cross

Do you think Galatians is not all that?

I have shown you - as we walk in the Spirit - the law is fulfilled in us, we are able to obey (the law) perfectly. Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.

I don't have a problem with Galatians, of course, it is God's Word, yet people take what Paul says and it apply it to their lives and then state they are free in Christ to do whatever it is they would like to do.

Yes, I see it across the board in a believer's life, sin is a HUGE problem, we are to be sinless, ridding ourselves of it - this would be deemed by some to be legalistic, not saying you are saying that, but I am trying to point out that when people obey, live Holy lives, they are deemed legalistic, as I stated in a previous post.

We are free in Christ, to live as Christ did, walk as He walked.

I understand all of that....this thread is about legalisim...which is NOT living holy before God...determining that someone who does not live

as YOU personally see holiness, would easily be defined as legalisim IMO....

BTW, when I put a word in caps, it's for emphasis...I'm not yelling so no worries

[Farmgal]

I have already posted the scripture, but will do so again, the law has not disappeared as you are so trying to "get rid of it".

Romans 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Uh huh....but ONLY if we do not walk according to the flesh, what do you think legalism is?

Christ fulfilled the law...we never could....legalism is ADDING to the perfect work of Christ on the cross

Do you think Galatians is not all that?

I have shown you - as we walk in the Spirit - the law is fulfilled in us, we are able to obey (the law) perfectly. Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.

I don't have a problem with Galatians, of course, it is God's Word, yet people take what Paul says and it apply it to their lives and then state they are free in Christ to do whatever it is they would like to do.

Yes, I see it across the board in a believer's life, sin is a HUGE problem, we are to be sinless, ridding ourselves of it - this would be deemed by some to be legalistic, not saying you are saying that, but I am trying to point out that when people obey, live Holy lives, they are deemed legalistic, as I stated in a previous post.

We are free in Christ, to live as Christ did, walk as He walked.

I understand all of that....this thread is about legalisim...which is NOT living holy before God...determining that someone who does not live

as YOU personally see holiness, would easily be defined as legalisim IMO....

BTW, when I put a word in caps, it's for emphasis...I'm not yelling so no worries

I'm not worried about the caps, I do the same thing to emphasis, so don't think I am yelling either.

I understand this thread is about legalism, I stated in an earlier post that people need to be careful at labeling people legalistic because of what God has convicted them of. Some people do not watch TV, some people do not read certain kinds of books, some people wear only dresses - because they are convicted by God to do so and this could be viewed as a form of legalism to some.

It is not MY personal view of holiness, God's standard is Jesus, He set the standard, not I.

[gdemoss]

This is a life long study

Hmmmm....how do you see that Gary?

Paul indicates that we simply are now free in Christ

Please do not conclude I am proposing that sin is no prob...hopefully we have passed the stage where anyone contributing to this

thread would actually take that as a serious concept

Your question does not make sense to me. It has nothing to do with what I said as far as I can see. Maybe seek to clarify what your having trouble understanding in what I wrote within the context of what I presented so that I may better understand you? I need

Gary

Lifelong study...I'm not having trouble understanding what you are saying...it's not that deep...but how do you see a lifelong study of the subject?

Maybe you mean making decisions to follow?

That's my question...

Here is what I wrote:

We need never to point out that the letter of the law was not kept and accuse another of sin but instead we need to encourage one another to walk in love toward all, understanding the purpose for each written command in scripture. This is a life long study in which we hope to submit ourselves unto the Spirit entirely and remain sanctified unto God having sanctified him in our hearts.

Why do you not understand what I see is a life long study?

Gary

[Farmgal]

This particularly topic has been the subject of controversy for two millennia. It is very difficult for many people to grasp and has been a constant source of discussion within the church. No subject is more intimately bound up with the nature of the gospel than that of law and grace. In the degree to which error is entertained at this point, in the same degree is our conception of the gospel perverted. An erroneous conception of the function of law can be of such a character that it completely vitiates our view of the gospel; and an erroneous conception of the antithesis between law and grace can be of such a character that it demolishes both the substructure and the superstructure of grace.

It is absolutely vital to get a clear understanding of law and grace, and that will need plenty of rehashing and deep probing.

Maybe you could start a new thread.

I do want to point out that we establish the law, it is by grace we are able to abide perfectly.

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

[Sevenseas]

I'm not worried about the caps, I do the same thing to emphasis, so don't think I am yelling either.

I understand this thread is about legalism, I stated in an earlier post that people need to be careful at labeling people legalistic because of what God has convicted them of. Some people do not watch TV, some people do not read certain kinds of books, some people wear only dresses - because they are convicted by God to do so and this could be viewed as a form of legalism to some.

It is not MY personal view of holiness, God's standard is Jesus, He set the standard, not I.

Good then (re the caps)

See, I would not call someone legalistic if their desire is to follow Christ and they understand that while a Christian should do good works

and will do good works, it does not save them or make them holier.

Hmmm......maybe you might find the thread on spiritual abuse of interest....http://www.worthychr...-and-discussed/

I think it's the last few pages where the topic of legalism comes up and the exact thing you are mentioning above is gone into...someone

states they believe that a woman wearing slacks/jeans whatever, is an abomination

Why don't you check out that thread? It's ongoing and the same person who started this thread, started that one

I'm starting to think we might be coming together on our concepts ...just very different wording and it's ok if you think some things

are good to follow that I do not

On the other hand, I have read that some teachers believe that it is a cop out to quote the book of Galatians but I disagree

[Sevenseas]

We need never to point out that the letter of the law was not kept and accuse another of sin but instead we need to encourage one another to walk in love toward all, understanding the purpose for each written command in scripture. This is a life long study in which we hope to submit ourselves unto the Spirit entirely and remain sanctified unto God having sanctified him in our hearts.

Why do you not understand what I see is a life long study?

Gary

Well if you consider it a PERSONAL life long study that's your concept...but, and pardon me if I saw it wrong, you seem to state originally,

that it is generally that type of study

Again, my understanding is just fine.

There is absolutely no law that we need to follow. Romans would be my statement on the law and what I believe. I believe I have stated that

before.

And again, I see no opportunity to continue sinning in God's grace. These, are actually foundation principals ... the basics

[Sevenseas]

Clothing styles change. They also vary from one culture to another. God does not specify the style of clothing to be worn. The only time He did so was when He designated the types of garments to be worn by the priests, under the Law of Moses. (By the way, they wore under-shorts (breeches), girdles, bonnets, and coats, along with their robes.) The same people who command women to wear dresses usually also condemn men's wearing of shorts! Yet some of those same people will quote Exodus 28 as proof that the men are to wear the britches (breeches), and not the women. Should the men also wear girdles and bonnets, but not the women?

Fallacies of the “dresses only” arguments:

(1) We do not live by commandments from the Law of Moses.

(2) The Jewish women wore robes, not European/American style dresses.

(3) The Jewish men wore robes, not pants.

(4) Katastole translates as “to send down”, not as “long & flowing”.

(5) Even if it did, how long is long? To the knees? Below? To the ankles? Or floor?

(6) The context is for godly demeanor, not cut of cloth. Fallacies of the “dresses only” arguments:

(1) We do not live by commandments from the Law of Moses.

(2) The Jewish women wore robes, not European/American style dresses.

(3) The Jewish men wore robes, not pants.

(4) Katastole translates as “to send down”, not as “long & flowing”.

(5) Even if it did, how long is long? To the knees? Below? To the ankles? Or floor?

(6) The context is for godly demeanor, not cut of cloth.

The arguments are endless, as it always is when we choose legalistic arguments rather than trying to understand the spiritual message. Some argue that culottes are not acceptable, while others who press for “dresses only” say that they are a type of a dress. Some say that skirts and blouses may not be worn, because blouses are form-fitting, not long and flowing. Others say that blouses are merely men’s shirts renamed to make them acceptable.

Then there is the argument that pants are God’s authorized clothing for men. The scriptures indicate that the Israelites wore robes, not pants.

Exodus 20:26 "Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.”

Was God concerned that someone might look up the priest’s pant-legs—or up his robe?

For those who claim that “pants” are God’s designated form of outerwear for men, a quick study of the history of pants will set the record straight.

Godly men and women should conduct themselves in purity and humility—this includes how they dress. That is what God demands. Let us not go beyond what is written regarding “modesty” by defining for God a cut of cloth that He did not define for us.

Above is a copy paste...but I agree with the authors words

To those who would like to condemn a woman because she wears slacks, have you considered that you should be wearing a robe?

With no underwear?

How far do legalists want to take it? No wonder Paul asked the Galatians who had bewitched them

The other concern, is why do some people immediately assume that the disallowance for legalism is an automatic door to allow sin?

This is an erroneous conclusion. The entire Bible should be taken into consideration.....and the NT is very clear that being free

in Christ does NOT mean free to sin

Perhaps one should stop trying to make an issue out of something that does not exist in order to defend legalism

At any rate, hitting on others and being abusive in language and demeanor and trying to intimidate is just not acceptable

irregardless of what you are wearing

[GoldenEagle]

IMO....

You say this a lot sevenseas... Does this mean International Mathematical Olympiad? Or what?

[GoldenEagle]


"Obedience is not legalism." That depends. What are you obeying, by your effort and understanding the Mosaic Law or through the freedom of Christ, by Spirit and grace?


Excellent question Numenian. I agree this should be asked of people who want to argue something not in the Bible and then impose it on others. Particularly new Christians. The issue is the motivation or the heart issue. What is more important... The relationship or the system?



It is not MY personal view of holiness, God's standard is Jesus, He set the standard, not I.


This is an excellent point Farmgal. God’s standard is Jesus. He is our example. The standard is the Bible.

[GoldenEagle]


I understand all of that....this thread is about legalisim...which is NOT living holy before God...determining that someone who does not live
as YOU personally see holiness, would easily be defined as legalisim IMO....


I agree. The issue is when people try to interpret the Bible and say that their interpretation (which is not specifically in the Bible or can be viewed from different angles) is imposed on others.

Classic example: Women must wear pants to be modest or holy.


No, the scriptures do not teach what you claim they do. Paul was not telling the Galatians they were free to ignore God's laws. He was dealing with people who believed that salvation required steps to complete. FAITH + CIRCUMCISION + KEEPING THE LAW. What Paul teaches us in Galatians is that if we are led by the Spirit, be don't need to worry about the law, because we will bear the fruit of the Spirit, and won't need a law. God's commandments will be in our heart. On the other hand, Paul also gives us a list of works of the flesh that will keep us from inheriting the Kingdom of God, and he tells us that those who walk in the Spirt are not under the law. In other words, if you aren't walking in the Spirit, you are under the law. It remains as our schoolmaster to show us right from wrong.


Which laws are you referring to here in bold please? Are you speaking of ceremonial laws as well?


Right, and that is what Romans teaches. Those who are strict adherants to the law are not to judge those who are not, and those who are not are not to despise those that are. It is a two way street, and the only way you will have peace is if both sides actually follow that teaching. The very people in this thread attacking "legalists" are disobeying the scriptures they are throwing around, and they are judging people that don't agree with them. James teaches that faith will cause a person to have works. No works equals no true faith.


In Bold: How are we judging those who say one must do something (which isn't specifically laid out in the BIble) in order to be holy?

Underlined: Perhaps we should establish or define what are "works"?