The New Legalism

[Sevenseas]

Yet the Bible does define legalism as 'works'...ie being saved by works or adding to grace with works.

 

 

 

The apostle Paul warns us of legalism inColossians 2:20-23: “Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: ‘Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!’? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.” Legalists may appear to be righteous and spiritual, but legalism ultimately fails to accomplish God’s purposes because it is an outward performance instead of an inward change.

Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-Christian-legalism.html#ixzz2lO5i7cjW

 

 

Rest of article here

 

Here is another site that goes into more depth

[Dak]

It's a wonderful thing to desire to glorify God; it's a pride issue when one seeks to only glorify one's flesh when seemingly desirous to glorify God.

As Pg4Him has said, being a strong believer isn't about going some place to do something. If you're out and about your business on an ordinary day, and someone comes up to you and says: "Hey, I saw you coming out of that church meeting yesterday! You're one of those pesky Christians, aren't you???" And you say "Yes, I am,", well then guess what - you're being radical.

It's radical to pray - anywhere. Sing a worship song anywhere. Shout "Praise the Lord!" Anywhere.

One time in church, my pastor was preaching, and I was in such agreement a "Praise the Lord!" just lept out of me. I turned quite a few heads. I didn't expect to get such a response from people, but I guess I was being somewhat radical.

But God is constantly challenging me to fear Him and not man.

Are we up to the challenge. We can all be totally sold out for Jesus without having gone to a dozen places around the world. We can all be passionate for Him in the quiet raise of our hands in worship to Him.

Stay rad, man

I see nothing wrong in desiring to do great works for God. In fact this has been a strong driving force in my life since I fell in love with Jesus many years ago. And I also believe that, once you are Jesus', your life and the things you do are never ordinary....

The problem, I think, arises from these two things. First, we tend to judge "great works" according to the standards of man, not of God. (I don't need to cite examples, do I?) And second, the "great works" that we hope to do come from our own selfish ambitions (even if they are religious in nature, and even if we say we are doing it "in Jesus' name"), and not that of God's will; thus, they are not blessed, and we are not empowered by the Holy Spirit to do them.

So what happens to us then, if we work under man's punishing standards, and if we work only out of our own human power? FAILURE.

To win the approval of other people and to make it successfully in this jungle of a world filled with ravenous wolves is like lifting a car by your own hand: Your entire strength will be sucked out of you. And in the end, you may not even accomplish it. Meanwhile, God only requires faith and faithfulness in obeying his commands. His way is not exactly easy, but he has promised companionship, supply, guidance, and victory.

I repeat: I see nothing wrong in desiring to do great things for God, that is, as long as we do it the right way.

[Fez]

This is a subject close to my heart at the moment. I have a family member attending a church that chases the next "new" Christian thing. A fire walk, new book, new slant, anything new, because being a normal God faring believer is not enough anymore. 

 

Like in the world, many believers are looking for the next high, the next thrill, the next worship group the next mission trip.

 

A family, steady job, house in the suburbs and a Christian lifestyle is considered boring, when actually it is the foundation of society. 

 

Please don't misunderstand me, I think evangelism, missions, etc, are important, but they should work off a base of solid family church model.

 

Good article!

[Guest Butero]

Yet the Bible does define legalism as 'works'...ie being saved by works or adding to grace with works.

 

 

 

The apostle Paul warns us of legalism inColossians 2:20-23: “Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: ‘Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!’? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.” Legalists may appear to be righteous and spiritual, but legalism ultimately fails to accomplish God’s purposes because it is an outward performance instead of an inward change.

Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-Christian-legalism.html#ixzz2lO5i7cjW

 

 

Rest of article here

 

Here is another site that goes into more depth

And that passage is constantly taken out of context.  If you go on to Colossians 3:5-9, it says the following.

 

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetounsess, which is idolatry:  For which things sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.  In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.  But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communications out of your mouth.  Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds. 

 

We are not being told that because we are under grace, we are free to live any way we want and be ok.  Normally I am not the one who is pointing out a thread being derailed, but I will in this case.  We are focussing so much on the label of legalism, we are missing the point of the OP.  The word itself will cause strife, because I will keep arguing in favor of legalism and others will keep arguing against it.  The point of the OP was to discuss whether or not we place expectations on people that are so unreasonable, they can never attain them, like that they will start this huge worldwide ministry, write a great book, be a missionary, etc.  If they aren't able to do great exploits, they are made to feel like a failure.  I realize that the harvest is ready, and we should try to do our part, but I have known people personally that feel bad because they think they have done too little compared to others around them.  I don't think this condemnation is from God? 

[Guest shiloh357]

I see this new legalism at the Christian university I graduated from.  If you are not going on mission trips, if you are not helping in some missional project, you are not "radical" and if you are not "radical," then you are not living up to God's expectations. 

 

The chapel director lamented one year that they were not having enough men to sign up for mission trips and really heaped on the condemnation.  He said that if you have no desire to go on a mission trip, you might want to consider whether or not you are really saved.

 

Now, there are people who have passion for certain kinds of ministry and no passion for other kinds.  We fall into a bad position when we start feeling that everyone has to have the same passion for the same kind of ministry that "I" think is the most important.  God has a different call on the lives of different people and I think some people lose sight of the fact that just because so and so doesn't have a passion for the same areas of ministry that I have, they are somehow not really living for God the best that they could be, or perhaps their lack of desire might stem from a lack of the Holy Spirit which in turn might mean they are not really saved. 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

And that passage is constantly taken out of context.  If you go on to Colossians 3:5-9, it says the following.

 

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetounsess, which is idolatry:  For which things sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.  In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.  But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communications out of your mouth.  Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds. 

 

We are not being told that because we are under grace, we are free to live any way we want and be ok. 

I think everyone here agrees with that.  Just because a person doesn't believe works are necessary for salvation, it doesn't follow that they believe you can live any way they want.   In fact, many who believe in eternal security are major proponents of holiness. Charles Spurgeon and John Gill are two that come to mind.  Billy Graham emphasised holiness in his messages.

 

I think there is a tendency on your part, Butero to assign this whole notion that those who promote grace as opposed to works believe that we can sin as much as want, and it is a false accusation. 

 

We don't define legalism in terms of being obedient to God.  We define legalism in terms of having someone imposing their application of Scripture upon our walk with the Lord, to the degree that if I don't wear my hair as prescribed, if my clothes don't meet that person's definition of "godly" apparel, if a woman wears too much make up or jewelry then our walk with the Lord is questioned.

 

When we start defining holiness in fleshly, external standards and imposing those standards on others, instead basing holiness on the inward graces and divine attributes/virtues that the Holy Spirit has deposited in us, we have fallen into the morass of legalism.

[Guest Butero]

 

 

And that passage is constantly taken out of context.  If you go on to Colossians 3:5-9, it says the following.

 

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetounsess, which is idolatry:  For which things sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.  In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.  But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communications out of your mouth.  Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds. 

 

We are not being told that because we are under grace, we are free to live any way we want and be ok. 

I think everyone here agrees with that.  Just because a person doesn't believe works are necessary for salvation, it doesn't follow that they believe you can live any way they want.   In fact, many who believe in eternal security are major proponents of holiness. Charles Spurgeon and John Gill are two that come to mind.  Billy Graham emphasised holiness in his messages.

 

I think there is a tendency on your part, Butero to assign this whole notion that those who promote grace as opposed to works believe that we can sin as much as want, and it is a false accusation. 

 

We don't define legalism in terms of being obedient to God.  We define legalism in terms of having someone imposing their application of Scripture upon our walk with the Lord, to the degree that if I don't wear my hair as prescribed, if my clothes don't meet that person's definition of "godly" apparel, if a woman wears too much make up or jewelry then our walk with the Lord is questioned.

 

When we start defining holiness in fleshly, external standards and imposing those standards on others, instead basing holiness on the inward graces and divine attributes/virtues that the Holy Spirit has deposited in us, we have fallen into the morass of legalism.

 

I don't think you are all saying the same thing.  You think you are, but you really aren't.  I had a chance to look at what you were saying compared to Sevenseas, and I don't believe you are in agreement.  You seem to be saying that a real Christian can't continue in sin because their conscience won't allow it, and she seems to be saying that we aren't under the law so we don't need to try to obey commandments.  If you teach certain things are wrong based on the law, you are a legalist in her world, where you are saying Christians don't violate God's standards because they are new creatures in Christ and can't live that way anymore.  Because both of you don't agree with me, it comes across like you are saying the same thing in total unity, when you are not. 

 

I agree with you that real Christians cannot continue to live in sin, but here is where I disagree with you.  The Bible does have teachings about our appearance.  I don't know if you have noticed, but even some of the anti-legalist crowd has some standards.  Willaminia had a problem with skinny jeans, expensive dresses and 5 inch heels.  Most churches will draw the line somewhere.  They do that because in their view, those things are not modest.  I believe that it is sinful for women to wear pants and a shame for them to have short hair.  I believe it is sinful for a man to wear a dress and a shame to have long hair.  I do that based on my interpretation of scripture, and am applying it to the day we live in.  I am not doing anything differen't from Willamina and others except I find things sinful they don't, and I may not find problems with things they do think are wrong.  Legalism has become a word thrown around to cause people to stop speaking out against something they are doing, or something they think is ok. It is a manipulation tool, and in my case, I see through it and it won't work.  People can label me a legalist all they want, and I won't be silenced. 

[Guest Butero]

I see this new legalism at the Christian university I graduated from.  If you are not going on mission trips, if you are not helping in some missional project, you are not "radical" and if you are not "radical," then you are not living up to God's expectations. 

 

The chapel director lamented one year that they were not having enough men to sign up for mission trips and really heaped on the condemnation.  He said that if you have no desire to go on a mission trip, you might want to consider whether or not you are really saved.

 

Now, there are people who have passion for certain kinds of ministry and no passion for other kinds.  We fall into a bad position when we start feeling that everyone has to have the same passion for the same kind of ministry that "I" think is the most important.  God has a different call on the lives of different people and I think some people lose sight of the fact that just because so and so doesn't have a passion for the same areas of ministry that I have, they are somehow not really living for God the best that they could be, or perhaps their lack of desire might stem from a lack of the Holy Spirit which in turn might mean they are not really saved. 

Except for your use of the word legalism, I agree with this post. 

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't think you are all saying the same thing.  You think you are, but you really aren't.  I had a chance to look at what you were saying compared to Sevenseas, and I don't believe you are in agreement.  You seem to be saying that a real Christian can't continue in sin because their conscience won't allow it, and she seems to be saying that we aren't under the law so we don't need to try to obey commandments. 

 

 

Well that is not exactly true.  I don't think a person who is a genuine Christians contiues in sin because they operate from a transformed heart that is motivated from a sincere desire to serve the Lord.  It is merely a conscience issue to me, because even sinners have a conscience that keeps them doing certain wrong things.  I am saying that a true Christian operates from a inward motive to serve the Lord.  They are not looking for a way to sin.  The whole "grace is a license to sin" argument falls flat where a genuine believer is concerned.

 

As for Sevenseas, I can't speak for her, but I don't read her posts as saying we don't need to obey God's commandments because we are not under the law.  This hearkens back to her complaint and mine that you misrepresent what other people have posted and assign false values to our posts.  I don't see ANYTHING in her posts that advocates disobedience. 

 

I agree with you that real Christians cannot continue to live in sin, but here is where I disagree with you.  The Bible does have teachings about our appearance. 

 

 

Yes, the Bible does have teachings about appearance.  I never said it didn't.  But the problem is that there are entire "holiness" denominations that define godly appearance in terms of how long woman or a man's hair is.  They define holiness in terms of how much make up a woman wears or if she wears perfume. They define holiness by how many inches from the ground a woman's dress is.   There is a "holiness" church in my area that forbids their congregants from wearing a watch or a wedding ring. The pastor of that same church preaches that it is a sin to have/watch television.  It is that kind of silliness that I am talking about.

 

No one is claiming that what you wear doesn't matter.  The Bible sets standards for godly living and appearance, but some have taken it to unbiblical proportions. 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

I see this new legalism at the Christian university I graduated from.  If you are not going on mission trips, if you are not helping in some missional project, you are not "radical" and if you are not "radical," then you are not living up to God's expectations. 

 

The chapel director lamented one year that they were not having enough men to sign up for mission trips and really heaped on the condemnation.  He said that if you have no desire to go on a mission trip, you might want to consider whether or not you are really saved.

 

Now, there are people who have passion for certain kinds of ministry and no passion for other kinds.  We fall into a bad position when we start feeling that everyone has to have the same passion for the same kind of ministry that "I" think is the most important.  God has a different call on the lives of different people and I think some people lose sight of the fact that just because so and so doesn't have a passion for the same areas of ministry that I have, they are somehow not really living for God the best that they could be, or perhaps their lack of desire might stem from a lack of the Holy Spirit which in turn might mean they are not really saved. 

Except for your use of the word legalism, I agree with this post. 

 

You use the word your way; I use it the correct way.