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

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? 

 

 

Well, that's what you say because you have an interpretation that many of us do not agree with.

 

The Bible basically defines what we are calling legalism, as works.

 

That would include anything a person thinks they must do or should do in order to be saved or sometimes even more saved. (no such thing as more saved)

 

As far as focusing on legalism, I noticed that Shiloh, who started the thread, actually used the word in his title....the 'new' legalism...indicating that the practice

of legalistic works is continuing and finding new ways to rear its ugly head, so, you should not be surprised if that is what is actually discussed

 

I merely pointed out that the Bible actually does adress legalism, calling it 'works'

[Guest Butero]

 

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. 

 

I just got through acknowledging to LadyKay that it is possible I have misrepresented the position of others, but it is not intentional.  All anyone has to do is explain how I am taking them wrong, and I am open to it.  In the now closed thread, I read your answer to my question about a Christian who lives like the sinners mentioned in 1 Corinthains 6:9,10 and compared it to what Sevenseas said, and your answers were not the same.  I felt like you answered the question in an absolute way and she didn't.  I pretty much agreed with what you said, not in the entire post, but in the answer to my question, where I couldn't even be sure what she was saying.  I just tried to make sense of it, and I had to come up with my own conclusions.  Of course they could be wrong, but there is nothing to stop her from setting the record straight, and I will be happy to look at anything new she has to add. 

[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? 

 

 

Well, that's what you say because you have an interpretation that many of us do not agree with.

 

The Bible basically defines what we are calling legalism, as works.

 

That would include anything a person thinks they must do or should do in order to be saved or sometimes even more saved. (no such thing as more saved)

 

As far as focusing on legalism, I noticed that Shiloh, who started the thread, actually used the word in his title....the 'new' legalism...indicating that the practice

of legalistic works is continuing and finding new ways to rear its ugly head, so, you should not be surprised if that is what is actually discussed

 

I merely pointed out that the Bible actually does adress legalism, calling it 'works'

 

Yes, he did use the word legalism in the title, and that was a mistake, IMO.  Right off the bat, I was prepared to disagree with this thread because of the use of that word, only to find out I agreed with most of what was said in the OP. 

 

You claim the Bible says legalism is works, but the Bible never uses the word legalism.  It doesn't define the word legalism as anything.  Legalism is a modern word, and you need a Dictionary to define it's meaning.  As far as works goes, here is what the Bible says. 

 

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.  James 2:26

[Sevenseas]

Shiloh:  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.

 

 

 

Agree.

 

Imposing personal standards of holiness upon others is a burden and does not make anyone more holy in God's sight.

 

I did grow up in a church that had certain (I think now) added 'rules' but nothing extreme.  For example, no swimming on Sundays...but it was OK to wear bathing suits any other day.

 

A family member would not let anyone go to a restaurant on Sunday...yet, when we were in New York attending some meetings at David Wilkerson's church, Mr. Wilkerson, after the

morning meeting, said he hoped he would see everyone back in the evening and then mentionned a restaurant he was having lunch at.  So, how do you reconcile that?  This

person's 'hero' just blew up a personal ballon of obedience that he imagined made him just a little holier.

 

It can get ridiculous in some things and plain burdensome in others.  Adding to grace does not make a person sinless.  We desire to obey the Lord...it is a changed heart God is after....

not a change of clothing and while one may follow the other, painting a horse white that is black underneath does not make the horse really white.  Same applies to people...wearing

your hair shirt will not really chase thoughts you should not be having out of your mind.

[Guest Butero]

 

Shiloh:  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.

 

 

 

Agree.

 

Imposing personal standards of holiness upon others is a burden and does not make anyone more holy in God's sight.

 

I did grow up in a church that had certain (I think now) added 'rules' but nothing extreme.  For example, no swimming on Sundays...but it was OK to wear bathing suits any other day.

 

A family member would not let anyone go to a restaurant on Sunday...yet, when we were in New York attending some meetings at David Wilkerson's church, Mr. Wilkerson, after the

morning meeting, said he hoped he would see everyone back in the evening and then mentionned a restaurant he was having lunch at.  So, how do you reconcile that?  This

person's 'hero' just blew up a personal ballon of obedience that he imagined made him just a little holier.

 

It can get ridiculous in some things and plain burdensome in others.  Adding to grace does not make a person sinless.  We desire to obey the Lord...it is a changed heart God is after....

not a change of clothing and while one may follow the other, painting a horse white that is black underneath does not make the horse really white.  Same applies to people...wearing

your hair shirt will not really chase thoughts you should not be having out of your mind.

 

It only shows that one church had the belief you shouldn't go out ot eat on Sunday and another did not.  I have no problem with either one of them.  I wouldn't attack the church that had a rule against eating out on Sunday and call them legalists.  Legalism in the church is no different than racism in the world.  It is a word used to silence critics.  If you disagree with Obama or anything he is doing, or a new bill with the title "civil rights" in it, you are a racist.  This is thrown around to make people fearful they will be looked down on, so they shut up.  In the church, the word legalist is thrown around so people won't be critical of something a person is doing.  It has no basis in scripture, and is just a way to censor people.  When you can't force them to be quiet through a law, you get them to censor themselves for fear of being labeled a legalist. 

[Guest shiloh357]

In the church, the word legalist is thrown around so people won't be critical of something a person is doing. 

 

Not true.  No one is called a legalist when they stand up against abortion or homosexuality or adultery or other kinds of sexual immorality.  No one is called a legalist when they criticize the pastor for immoral living.

 

Legalism is a term applied to man-made rules that define holiness according to extra-biblical standards.  Legalism isn't a bibilical word, but the concept is there, such as when Paul told people not criticize others for whether or not they chose to eat meat.  

 

Legalism as it is applied in the church usually takes issues of conscience and makes turns them into a means of measuring or judging another person's walk with God.  Leglaism doesn't mean strict obedience to God's commandments.  That appears to be how you are using the term, and if that is how you are using it, you are not using it correctly.

[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

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? 

 

 

Well, that's what you say because you have an interpretation that many of us do not agree with.

 

The Bible basically defines what we are calling legalism, as works.

 

That would include anything a person thinks they must do or should do in order to be saved or sometimes even more saved. (no such thing as more saved)

 

As far as focusing on legalism, I noticed that Shiloh, who started the thread, actually used the word in his title....the 'new' legalism...indicating that the practice

of legalistic works is continuing and finding new ways to rear its ugly head, so, you should not be surprised if that is what is actually discussed

 

I merely pointed out that the Bible actually does adress legalism, calling it 'works'

 

Yes, he did use the word legalism in the title, and that was a mistake, IMO.  Right off the bat, I was prepared to disagree with this thread because of the use of that word, only to find out I agreed with most of what was said in the OP. 

 

You claim the Bible says legalism is works, but the Bible never uses the word legalism.  It doesn't define the word legalism as anything.  Legalism is a modern word, and you need a Dictionary to define it's meaning.  As far as works goes, here is what the Bible says. 

 

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.  James 2:26

 

 

 

LOL!  Come on now.  It's not your op...you can start one on why you think the word legalism or legalistic or what have you should not be allowed.  It should be an interesting thread.

 

You know, it does not matter whether or not you take exception to the word in question because it is actually the MEANING of the word as applied in this thread that you appear to

disagree with.  That is not something anyone can alter for you. 

 

The Bible absolutely does define legalism as works and if you would take the time to read the BIBLE referenced articles I linked to a few posts back, you would not make such a statement.

 

You seem to be rather hung up on certain terms, but again, there are more ways to describe legalism that just the word and the Bible does define what legalism is.  You have repeated this

claim over and over and yet you have not changed the meaning or the intent of legalism one bit as described and referenced in scripture.

 

 Legalism is the excessive and improper use of the law (10 commandments, holiness laws, etc).  This legalism can take different forms.  The first is where a person attempts to keep the Law in order to attain salvation.  The second is where a person keeps the law in order to maintain his salvation.  The third is when a Christian judges other Christians for not keeping certain codes of conduct that he thinks need to be observed.  

 

Simply put, it is the addition of rules to God's grace.  

 

Here is an excerpt from one of my links:

 

The last kind of legalism, where a Christian keeps certain laws and regards other Christians who do not keep his level of holiness with contempt, is a frequent problem in the church.  Now, we want to make it clear that all Christians are to abstain from fornication, adultery, pornography, lying, stealing, etc.  Christians do have a right to judge the spirituality of other Christians in these areas where the Bible clearly speaks.  But, in the debatable areas we need to be more careful, and this is where legalism is more difficult to define.  Rom. 14:1-12 says that we are not to judge our brothers on debatable issues.  One person may eat certain kinds of foods where another would not.  One person might worship on a particular day where another might not.  We are told to let each person be convinced in his own mind (Rom. 14:5).  As long as our freedom does not violate the Scriptures, then everything should be okay.

 

 

You seem to define grace as someone's permission to continue sinning.   Please show us where that has been said in this or any other thread.  If you cannot show us where someone said it is ok to keep sinning,

then you should gracefully and politely stop saying someone said that.  It would be really kind of you to acknowledge the truth here and admit no one has ever stated it.  Again, please show us where somone

said just keep sinning and God's grace is enough.  I'm not talking about a personal anecdote now...I am meaning right here or in another thread.  That, would be evidence that what you say is true.

[Guest Butero]

 

In the church, the word legalist is thrown around so people won't be critical of something a person is doing. 

 

Not true.  No one is called a legalist when they stand up against abortion or homosexuality or adultery or other kinds of sexual immorality.  No one is called a legalist when they criticize the pastor for immoral living.

 

Legalism is a term applied to man-made rules that define holiness according to extra-biblical standards.  Legalism isn't a bibilical word, but the concept is there, such as when Paul told people not criticize others for whether or not they chose to eat meat.  

 

Legalism as it is applied in the church usually takes issues of conscience and makes turns them into a means of measuring or judging another person's walk with God.  Leglaism doesn't mean strict obedience to God's commandments.  That appears to be how you are using the term, and if that is how you are using it, you are not using it correctly.

 

Legalism is used to attack any church or believer that takes the position that something they are doing is wrong.  It is used in the exact same way liberals use terms like racist to silence critics.  Had I been playing this game, I would have called Willamina a legalist for coming against women wearing 5 inch heels to her church, because I see nothing wrong with women having 5 inch heels.  I am not playing this game, so I didn't do that.  On the other hand, if I say that women wearing pants is just as sinful as a man wearing a dress, women that wear pants will call me a legalist to silence me.  Funny thing is, nobody seems to get upset if I say a man is doing wrong to wear a dress. 

 

What is extra-Biblical to one person is interpreting scripture and making application to another person.  For instance, I don't consider it extra-Biblical to say it is a shame when men have long hair and women have short hair.  I find that taught in scripture.  Just because another person wants to claim it doesn't mean what I say it does doesn't mean I am preaching extra-Biblical doctrine, and I have just as much right to my opinion as the next person does.  We are often asked what is right and what is wrong in different threads, and if everyone doesnt share the same opinion, some get mad and try to gang up on anyone that disagrees with them.  I see this all the time, and the term "legalism" is a favorite tool of those trying to silence the oppositions. 

[Sevenseas]

 

 

Shiloh:  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.

 

 

 

Agree.

 

Imposing personal standards of holiness upon others is a burden and does not make anyone more holy in God's sight.

 

I did grow up in a church that had certain (I think now) added 'rules' but nothing extreme.  For example, no swimming on Sundays...but it was OK to wear bathing suits any other day.

 

A family member would not let anyone go to a restaurant on Sunday...yet, when we were in New York attending some meetings at David Wilkerson's church, Mr. Wilkerson, after the

morning meeting, said he hoped he would see everyone back in the evening and then mentionned a restaurant he was having lunch at.  So, how do you reconcile that?  This

person's 'hero' just blew up a personal ballon of obedience that he imagined made him just a little holier.

 

It can get ridiculous in some things and plain burdensome in others.  Adding to grace does not make a person sinless.  We desire to obey the Lord...it is a changed heart God is after....

not a change of clothing and while one may follow the other, painting a horse white that is black underneath does not make the horse really white.  Same applies to people...wearing

your hair shirt will not really chase thoughts you should not be having out of your mind.

 

It only shows that one church had the belief you shouldn't go out ot eat on Sunday and another did not.  I have no problem with either one of them.  I wouldn't attack the church that had a rule against eating out on Sunday and call them legalists.  Legalism in the church is no different than racism in the world.  It is a word used to silence critics.  If you disagree with Obama or anything he is doing, or a new bill with the title "civil rights" in it, you are a racist.  This is thrown around to make people fearful they will be looked down on, so they shut up.  In the church, the word legalist is thrown around so people won't be critical of something a person is doing.  It has no basis in scripture, and is just a way to censor people.  When you can't force them to be quiet through a law, you get them to censor themselves for fear of being labeled a legalist. 

 

 

You mixed up what I wrote.  I said it was a family member that made the rule for themself and wanted to apply it to everyone .  It was David Wilkerson who said he was eating in a restaurant on Sunday

and that greatly offended the person with the personal rule.  It was not a church rule.

 

I disagree concerning your premise regarding the use of the word legalism.  And so would anyone else with a dictionary and a true understanding of God's grace and adding to it with works or keeping

all or certain portions of the law.

 

Comparing society's use of certain words with the truth of scripture is not helpful and simply defines how sinful people need the grace of God to get past all that.  They need their sins forgiven

and they need a new heart.

[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? 

 

 

Well, that's what you say because you have an interpretation that many of us do not agree with.

 

The Bible basically defines what we are calling legalism, as works.

 

That would include anything a person thinks they must do or should do in order to be saved or sometimes even more saved. (no such thing as more saved)

 

As far as focusing on legalism, I noticed that Shiloh, who started the thread, actually used the word in his title....the 'new' legalism...indicating that the practice

of legalistic works is continuing and finding new ways to rear its ugly head, so, you should not be surprised if that is what is actually discussed

 

I merely pointed out that the Bible actually does adress legalism, calling it 'works'

 

Yes, he did use the word legalism in the title, and that was a mistake, IMO.  Right off the bat, I was prepared to disagree with this thread because of the use of that word, only to find out I agreed with most of what was said in the OP. 

 

You claim the Bible says legalism is works, but the Bible never uses the word legalism.  It doesn't define the word legalism as anything.  Legalism is a modern word, and you need a Dictionary to define it's meaning.  As far as works goes, here is what the Bible says. 

 

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.  James 2:26

 

 

 

LOL!  Come on now.  It's not your op...you can start one on why you think the word legalism or legalistic or what have you should not be allowed.  It should be an interesting thread.

 

You know, it does not matter whether or not you take exception to the word in question because it is actually the MEANING of the word as applied in this thread that you appear to

disagree with.  That is not something anyone can alter for you. 

 

The Bible absolutely does define legalism as works and if you would take the time to read the BIBLE referenced articles I linked to a few posts back, you would not make such a statement.

 

You seem to be rather hung up on certain terms, but again, there are more ways to describe legalism that just the word and the Bible does define what legalism is.  You have repeated this

claim over and over and yet you have not changed the meaning or the intent of legalism one bit as described and referenced in scripture.

 

 Legalism is the excessive and improper use of the law (10 commandments, holiness laws, etc).  This legalism can take different forms.  The first is where a person attempts to keep the Law in order to attain salvation.  The second is where a person keeps the law in order to maintain his salvation.  The third is when a Christian judges other Christians for not keeping certain codes of conduct that he thinks need to be observed.  

 

Simply put, it is the addition of rules to God's grace.  

 

Here is an excerpt from one of my links:

 

The last kind of legalism, where a Christian keeps certain laws and regards other Christians who do not keep his level of holiness with contempt, is a frequent problem in the church.  Now, we want to make it clear that all Christians are to abstain from fornication, adultery, pornography, lying, stealing, etc.  Christians do have a right to judge the spirituality of other Christians in these areas where the Bible clearly speaks.  But, in the debatable areas we need to be more careful, and this is where legalism is more difficult to define.  Rom. 14:1-12 says that we are not to judge our brothers on debatable issues.  One person may eat certain kinds of foods where another would not.  One person might worship on a particular day where another might not.  We are told to let each person be convinced in his own mind (Rom. 14:5).  As long as our freedom does not violate the Scriptures, then everything should be okay.

 

 

You seem to define grace as someone's permission to continue sinning.   Please show us where that has been said in this or any other thread.  If you cannot show us where someone said it is ok to keep sinning,

then you should gracefully and politely stop saying someone said that.  It would be really kind of you to acknowledge the truth here and admit no one has ever stated it.  Again, please show us where somone

said just keep sinning and God's grace is enough.  I'm not talking about a personal anecdote now...I am meaning right here or in another thread.  That, would be evidence that what you say is true.

 

I gave you an opportunity to show I took you wrong and you didn't take it.  I asked you a simple question, one that Shiloh answered, and you posted a response to, but you never answered my question.  I asked you if a person continues to commit the sins mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9,10, wlll they inherit the Kingdom of Heaven if they are a professing Christian?  If you would give me a yes or no answer to that question, I could easily see whether or not you believe a Christian can continue living in sin and remain saved.  I never once claimed you were telling people they should sin.  I said you were saying that if they did continue in sin, they would still be saved.  If I am taking that wrong, now is your chance to set the record straight. 

 

That passage in Romans also states that if someone does esteem something unclean, those who do those things are not to offend the person who esteems them unclean.  In other words, it is a two way street.  I am not to judge them as unsaved, and they are to respect my view that those things are unclean.  The anti-legalist crowd always puts all the emphasis on not judging and ignores the part of not offending others.  The laws being mentioned are laws of separation, not moral laws, so it doesn't even apply to the kind of things the anti-legalist crowd tries to apply them to.

 

As for the title of this thread, of course Shiloh had every right to name it anything he wants.  I just said that by choosing that title, it opened the thread up to go in a direction he didn't intend.  It has allowed us to go off on a debate about legalism, rather than dealing with the subject of churches making people feel like they aren't doing what they should if they don't do great exploits for Christ.  He had a right to give it this title, and I have a right to criticize the title, IMO.