GoldenEagle Posted July 18, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.79 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2013 1. Butero,I don’t think many hold the same view you do about legalism brother. I believe in fact that many would disagree with the definition you use or that legalism is Biblical. I don’t think the OP really is about the definition of legalism. But since you bring it up I don’t believe the OP author (Bornagain2011) would agree with the use of the definition you provided. I could be wrong. Legalism 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. Lets begin with the purpose of the OP and what is being referred to as legalistic? What is being called legalism is people telling someone that they can't Biblically divorce and re-marry. This is based on the teachings of Jesus, not Moses. Jesus is the one that told us if we wish to be great in his Kingdom, we will teach and obey his commandments. That would be legalism. It is strict adherence to the law. Remember it was telling someone they were in an unlawful marriage that cost John the Baptist his head. Was he a legalist? This is a very curious introduction to your post. In the same paragraph you use the term legalism in reference to what is clearly not Biblical (a person cannot divorce and re-marry: do you agree with this?), then go onto say Jesus taught legalism (your definition: strict adherence to the law), and then saying that John the Baptist lost his head for telling someone the truth. I don't think John the Baptist would classify himself today as legalistic as most people hold the view I've given above when they think of this term. Perhaps it's just semantics but this is confusing to me. Possible to clarify? God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted July 18, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.79 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2013 What the anti-legalism crowd is teaching is that we can sin without eternal damnation, so their is no consequence to our soul. Oh, we might be chastised, or even lose a crown or two, but that's it. That is false doctrine. The anti-legalism crowd teaches us things like, "try not to try." That was the advise of Joyce Meyer, and it is contrary to scripture that tells us to resist the devil and he will flee from us. They teach that Christian freedom is the ability to do things. To Chuck Swindoll, his freedom in Christ allows him to do things like drink in moderation. Funny, but last time I looked, sinners do that without knowing Christ. It wasn't even prohibited in the law of Moses, so why do we need freedom to drink alcohol in moderation? How is it freedom to be able to eat what we want? The sinners have always done that with no problem. No, the life of Christian freedom is not like the freedom of the open road on route 66, as Chuck Swindoll likes to say. As a matter of fact, he is preaching the broad road to destruction, not the narrow way to life. It would be more appropriate for him to compare his life to a super highway with no speed limits, racing for the cliff as fast as he can. Yes, I have listed to his false messages on the radio. I'm not familiar with Joyce Meyer. Christian freedom is the freedom to do the RIGHT things - with the enabling of the Holy Spirit. Those who do not know Christ cannot choose to do the right things of their own free will as they are not indwelt with God's Holy Spirit. Would you agree? Are you saying that drinking in moderation is a sin? Where did Chuck Swindoll say that Christian freedom is like the open road on route 66? Is Chuck Swindoll preaching Jesus Christ as the only way to God? I believe so. What do you mean by he is "preaching the broad road to destruction, not the narrow way to life"? Personally, I find your comments about Chuck Swindoll a bit off. What I've listened to of his teachings is usually pretty much on target. God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted July 18, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.79 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2013 You have a quote about the life of those who hold to the law without worship. The horror of it. Problem is, what I see is churches substituting holiness for worship services where people don't live right, but come to church, shout and dance and speak in tongues, and believe that will make up for all the sin. They will say things like how David was a man after God's own heart, even though he was a murderer and adulterer, but he knew how to worship so that made everything ok. Relationship over righteousness. False doctrine. Now you have a quote from Chuck Swindoll telling us how the worst thing you can do is raise your kids strict, while being a hypocrite. Why not raise them strict and live the life yourself? As far as that goes, why not live strict and worship God too? Why one or the other, and not both? I think you misunderstood the quotes. Here's my take on them... Tullian's point is that God is the one who does the changing and it is not something we can do of our power. Do you agree with this? John Piper was saying that doing good works should be out of love and not duty. If we do good things or righteous things for our own sake it lacks a key ingredient: joy that stems from loving God. Do you agree with this? John Piper then says we should delight in the Lord and seek glorify God. Do you agree with this? For reference here they are... “Legalism says God will love us if we change. The gospel says God will change us because He loves us.” - Tullian Tchividjian "Trying to work for God without worshipping God results in joyless legalism. Work minus worship magnifies your will power not God's worth. If you try to do things for God without delighting in God you bring dishonor upon God. Serving God without savoring God is lifeless and unreal." - John Piper "Outward acts of piety which do not flow from the new and God-given affections of the heart, which delight to depend on God and seek his glory are only legalism and have no value in honoring God." - John Piper I think what Chuck Swindoll was getting at was hypocrisy that is prevalent today in many families of so-called Christians. Example: The family looks great when at church but as soon as they get into the car the bickering, arguing, and cursing begins. Parents want their kids to obey them but the parents don't honor God in their private lives. Again, here's the quote. "You want to mess up the minds of your children? Here's how - guaranteed! Rear them in a legalistic, tight context of external religion, where performance is more important than reality. Fake your faith. Sneak around and pretend your spirituality . Train your children to do the same. Embrace a long list of do's and don'ts publicly but hypocritically practice them privately... yet never own up to the fact that its hypocrisy. Act one way but live another. And you can count on it - emotional and spiritual damage will occur." - Chuck Swindoll God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted July 18, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.79 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2013 Back to the OP. I can clearly see that if a woman is divorced, and her ex-husband cheated on her, she is free to re-marry. I know that on the inside. At the same time, if the person doesn't have a clean conscience in the matter, and thinks they would be in sin, and the only hope is that they can make it to heaven while sinning, there is something terribly wrong. That is the kind of stuff that comes from the false doctrine of the anti-legalists. As to the OP... I agree it all comes down to conscious. Seeking God is key. Sounds to me in this last sentence you're equating everyone who doesn't hold your definition of legalism as those who promote false doctrine. This may not have been your intent but could you clarify please? God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widor1 Posted July 18, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 140 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 105 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/10/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/20/1987 Share Posted July 18, 2013 I think you misunderstood the quotes. Here's my take on them... Tullian's point is that God is the one who does the changing and it is not something we can do of our power. Do you agree with this? John Piper was saying that doing good works should be out of love and not duty. If we do good things or righteous things for our own sake it lacks a key ingredient: joy that stems from loving God. Do you agree with this? John Piper then says we should delight in the Lord and seek glorify God. Do you agree with this? For reference here they are... “Legalism says God will love us if we change. The gospel says God will change us because He loves us.” - Tullian Tchividjian "Trying to work for God without worshipping God results in joyless legalism. Work minus worship magnifies your will power not God's worth. If you try to do things for God without delighting in God you bring dishonor upon God. Serving God without savoring God is lifeless and unreal." - John Piper "Outward acts of piety which do not flow from the new and God-given affections of the heart, which delight to depend on God and seek his glory are only legalism and have no value in honoring God." - John Piper Amen! I can do nothing without Him who gives me strength, love, and purpose. My entire self belongs to God, and I pray for daily transformation from the Spirit. 1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Romans 12:1-2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted July 18, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.79 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2013 What the anti-legalism crowd is teaching is that we can sin without eternal damnation, so their is no consequence to our soul. Oh, we might be chastised, or even lose a crown or two, but that's it. That is false doctrine. The anti-legalism crowd teaches us things like, "try not to try." That was the advise of Joyce Meyer, and it is contrary to scripture that tells us to resist the devil and he will flee from us. They teach that Christian freedom is the ability to do things. To Chuck Swindoll, his freedom in Christ allows him to do things like drink in moderation. Funny, but last time I looked, sinners do that without knowing Christ. It wasn't even prohibited in the law of Moses, so why do we need freedom to drink alcohol in moderation? How is it freedom to be able to eat what we want? The sinners have always done that with no problem. No, the life of Christian freedom is not like the freedom of the open road on route 66, as Chuck Swindoll likes to say. As a matter of fact, he is preaching the broad road to destruction, not the narrow way to life. It would be more appropriate for him to compare his life to a super highway with no speed limits, racing for the cliff as fast as he can. Yes, I have listed to his false messages on the radio. I'm not familiar with Joyce Meyer. Christian freedom is the freedom to do the RIGHT things - with the enabling of the Holy Spirit. Those who do not know Christ cannot choose to do the right things of their own free will as they are not indwelt with God's Holy Spirit. Would you agree? Are you saying that drinking in moderation is a sin? Where did Chuck Swindoll say that Christian freedom is like the open road on route 66? Is Chuck Swindoll preaching Jesus Christ as the only way to God? I believe so. What do you mean by he is "preaching the broad road to destruction, not the narrow way to life"? Personally, I find your comments about Chuck Swindoll a bit off. What I've listened to of his teachings is usually pretty much on target. God bless, GE I was referring to something Chuck Swindoll preached in a radio series. The same thing goes for Joyce Meyers. I do agree that freedom to live in a way that is pleasing to God requires that we have his Spirit living on the inside. If you didn't hear the radio programs, you wouldn't know what I was talking about with regard to Chuck Swindoll, but I would guess he still sells the series on CD? I don't need freedom to drink, but if I struggle with alcoholism, I would need freedom not to drink. The whole message that being able to do "things" some don't approve of is "Christian freedom" is absurd. I'd like to know which of Chuck Swindoll series you are referencing. Like I said, I doubt that he would preach a different Gospel other than Jesus Christ. To me this is an unfounded accusation. Re: Christian Freedom - So is it absurd for some people to think that women wearing pants is a sin? While others think that it is absurd to impose such restrictions on women? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted July 18, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.79 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2013 I think you misunderstood the quotes. Here's my take on them... Tullian's point is that God is the one who does the changing and it is not something we can do of our power. Do you agree with this? John Piper was saying that doing good works should be out of love and not duty. If we do good things or righteous things for our own sake it lacks a key ingredient: joy that stems from loving God. Do you agree with this? John Piper then says we should delight in the Lord and seek glorify God. Do you agree with this? For reference here they are... “Legalism says God will love us if we change. The gospel says God will change us because He loves us.” - Tullian Tchividjian "Trying to work for God without worshipping God results in joyless legalism. Work minus worship magnifies your will power not God's worth. If you try to do things for God without delighting in God you bring dishonor upon God. Serving God without savoring God is lifeless and unreal." - John Piper "Outward acts of piety which do not flow from the new and God-given affections of the heart, which delight to depend on God and seek his glory are only legalism and have no value in honoring God." - John Piper Amen! I can do nothing without Him who gives me strength, love, and purpose. My entire self belongs to God, and I pray for daily transformation from the Spirit. 1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Romans 12:1-2 Amen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted July 18, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.79 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2013 1. Butero,I don’t think many hold the same view you do about legalism brother. I believe in fact that many would disagree with the definition you use or that legalism is Biblical. I don’t think the OP really is about the definition of legalism. But since you bring it up I don’t believe the OP author (Bornagain2011) would agree with the use of the definition you provided. I could be wrong. Legalism 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. Lets begin with the purpose of the OP and what is being referred to as legalistic? What is being called legalism is people telling someone that they can't Biblically divorce and re-marry. This is based on the teachings of Jesus, not Moses. Jesus is the one that told us if we wish to be great in his Kingdom, we will teach and obey his commandments. That would be legalism. It is strict adherence to the law. Remember it was telling someone they were in an unlawful marriage that cost John the Baptist his head. Was he a legalist? This is a very curious introduction to your post. In the same paragraph you use the term legalism in reference to what is clearly not Biblical (a person cannot divorce and re-marry: do you agree with this?), then go onto say Jesus taught legalism (your definition: strict adherence to the law), and then saying that John the Baptist lost his head for telling someone the truth. I don't think John the Baptist would classify himself today as legalistic as most people hold the view I've given above when they think of this term. Perhaps it's just semantics but this is confusing to me. Possible to clarify? God bless, GE The reason I began with the purpose of the thread, is you mentioned that you don't believe the person who started the thread would agree with my definition of legalism, so I wanted to go back to the beginning, and what this thread was really all about? It was about divorce and re-marriage, and how "legalists" claim it will cause someone to lose their salvation. The only confusion I see is caused by the fact we both gave a different definition of legalism. The fact of the matter is, different people view legalism as different things. Underlined do you not see this as legalism? At least, when considering the definition I've provided which really is probably more in line with what the OP was discussing. I agree with you in bold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted July 18, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.79 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2013 You have a quote about the life of those who hold to the law without worship. The horror of it. Problem is, what I see is churches substituting holiness for worship services where people don't live right, but come to church, shout and dance and speak in tongues, and believe that will make up for all the sin. They will say things like how David was a man after God's own heart, even though he was a murderer and adulterer, but he knew how to worship so that made everything ok. Relationship over righteousness. False doctrine. Now you have a quote from Chuck Swindoll telling us how the worst thing you can do is raise your kids strict, while being a hypocrite. Why not raise them strict and live the life yourself? As far as that goes, why not live strict and worship God too? Why one or the other, and not both? I think you misunderstood the quotes. Here's my take on them... Tullian's point is that God is the one who does the changing and it is not something we can do of our power. Do you agree with this? John Piper was saying that doing good works should be out of love and not duty. If we do good things or righteous things for our own sake it lacks a key ingredient: joy that stems from loving God. Do you agree with this? John Piper then says we should delight in the Lord and seek glorify God. Do you agree with this? For reference here they are... “Legalism says God will love us if we change. The gospel says God will change us because He loves us.” - Tullian Tchividjian "Trying to work for God without worshipping God results in joyless legalism. Work minus worship magnifies your will power not God's worth. If you try to do things for God without delighting in God you bring dishonor upon God. Serving God without savoring God is lifeless and unreal." - John Piper "Outward acts of piety which do not flow from the new and God-given affections of the heart, which delight to depend on God and seek his glory are only legalism and have no value in honoring God." - John Piper I think what Chuck Swindoll was getting at was hypocrisy that is prevalent today in many families of so-called Christians. Example: The family looks great when at church but as soon as they get into the car the bickering, arguing, and cursing begins. Parents want their kids to obey them but the parents don't honor God in their private lives. Again, here's the quote. "You want to mess up the minds of your children? Here's how - guaranteed! Rear them in a legalistic, tight context of external religion, where performance is more important than reality. Fake your faith. Sneak around and pretend your spirituality . Train your children to do the same. Embrace a long list of do's and don'ts publicly but hypocritically practice them privately... yet never own up to the fact that its hypocrisy. Act one way but live another. And you can count on it - emotional and spiritual damage will occur." - Chuck Swindoll God bless, GE I took it that they were creating an either or scenario. In other words, the family can't be strict and actually live what they preach. If they are strict, we are automatically to assume they don't live right, and are hypocrites. One can't live a holy life and be a worshipper of God at the same time. If they live a holy lifestyle, we are to assume they are doing so without worshipping God. That's the problem I have with what they said. I don't understand what you've said above. Possible to re-word it please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted July 18, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.79 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2013 Back to the OP. I can clearly see that if a woman is divorced, and her ex-husband cheated on her, she is free to re-marry. I know that on the inside. At the same time, if the person doesn't have a clean conscience in the matter, and thinks they would be in sin, and the only hope is that they can make it to heaven while sinning, there is something terribly wrong. That is the kind of stuff that comes from the false doctrine of the anti-legalists. As to the OP... I agree it all comes down to conscious. Seeking God is key. Sounds to me in this last sentence you're equating everyone who doesn't hold your definition of legalism as those who promote false doctrine. This may not have been your intent but could you clarify please? God bless, GE Frankly, I don't see how it comes across that way? I was speaking in general terms about the preachers today that spend most of their time attacking the boogie man "legalism." I was speaking of how they are leading people astray, and teaching them to take the broad road that leads to destruction, rather than to walk the straight pathway that leads to eternal life. There is no such thing as a boogie man of "legalism." Legalism as I've defined above is real. It occurs all the time. The OP is an example of legalistic (as defined above "strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, especially to the letter rather than the spirit." and "the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.") teachings that are not Biblical. Please define the straight pathway that leads to eternal life? Are you speaking in A. general terms or are you speaking B. in specific, measurable terms? What would you say about men who have long hair, women who wear pants, people who have tattoos, people who have peircings, etc.? Curious. God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts