The New Legalism

[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. 

 

 

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.

 

If a church takes a position not to eat out on Sunday, I find nothing wrong with that.  People that don't like it can go to another church.  I know you just explained your church didn't take that position, but I am saying this would be the case if they did. The word legalism isn't in the Bible, so there is no Biblical definition of that word.  It is a secular word with a secular definition.  As it happens, I have a Dictionary beside my desk.  From "The New International Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary Of The English Language:

 

legalism-  Close adherance to law; strict conformity to law.

 

Legalism is nothing more than a term thrown around in the church by people who are trying to silence critics of something they are doing.  If you listen to secular music, the person who objects to it is a legalist.  If you wear jewelry and someone objects, they are a legalist.  It is nothing more than a tactic to censor opposing points of view. 

[Guest shiloh357]

legalism-  Close adherance to law; strict conformity to law.

 

Right.  And because it is not a biblical word, you cannnot apply it to strict adherence to God's laws.  Legalism is an English word with no theological or linguistic connection to God's laws.   Legalism was cointed to reference adherence to laws that are human in origin. 

 

Not commiting murder doesn't make me legalistic.  No one uses the word that way.

 

 

Legalism is nothing more than a term thrown around in the church by people who are trying to silence critics of something they are doing.  If you listen to secular music, the person who objects to it is a legalist.  If you wear jewelry and someone objects, they are a legalist.  It is nothing more than a tactic to censor opposing points of view. 

 

Wrong.  When a person's criticism centers around questioning someone else's walk with the Lord on the grounds of how much jewelry they wear, or the kind of music they listen to, that's legalism.   It is not the mere act of criticism, but the nature of criticism that makes it legalistic or not.

 

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. 

 

More accurately what the Scriptures say is that neither side should question the walk of others in issues of conscience.  The folks that ate the meat sacrificed  to idols and didn't feel they were sinning when doing so were not to judge those who felt that eating that meat was wrong.  Likewise, those who couldn't bring themselves to eat meat sacrificed to idols were not to judge those who did eat.

 

The way you are applying it, is you won't judge us as unsaved for doing what you think is unclean and we are not supposed to criticize you for feeling that what we do is unclean.   That is a gross misapplication of the passage.

[Guest Butero]

 

legalism-  Close adherance to law; strict conformity to law.

 

Right.  And because it is not a biblical word, you cannnot apply it to strict adherence to God's laws.  Legalism is an English word with no theological or linguistic connection to God's laws.   Legalism was cointed to reference adherence to laws that are human in origin. 

 

Not commiting murder doesn't make me legalistic.  No one uses the word that way.

 

 

Legalism is nothing more than a term thrown around in the church by people who are trying to silence critics of something they are doing.  If you listen to secular music, the person who objects to it is a legalist.  If you wear jewelry and someone objects, they are a legalist.  It is nothing more than a tactic to censor opposing points of view. 

 

Wrong.  When a person's criticism centers around questioning someone else's walk with the Lord on the grounds of how much jewelry they wear, or the kind of music they listen to, that's legalism.   It is not the mere act of criticism, but the nature of criticism that makes it legalistic or not.

 

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. 

 

More accurately what the Scriptures say is that neither side should question the walk of others in issues of conscience.  The folks that ate the meat sacrificed  to idols and didn't feel they were sinning when doing so were not to judge those who felt that eating that meat was wrong.  Likewise, those who couldn't bring themselves to eat meat sacrificed to idols were not to judge those who did eat.

 

The way you are applying it, is you won't judge us as unsaved for doing what you think is unclean and we are not supposed to criticize you for feeling that what we do is unclean.   That is a gross misapplication of the passage.

 

Legalism is not a Biblical term, so when people keep taking that secular term and applying it to Christianity, they are misusing it.  As such, people have been using it to come against anyone criticizing anything they are doing. 

 

What leads to the "legalism" label goes like this.  A new person comes here and starts a thread.  They ask a question like "Is it wrong for a Christian to get a tattoo?"  They are looking for opinions, and then they begin to be posted. 

 

GOD'S SERVANT:  I have tattoos all over my arm.  One of a cross, another of praying hands, and another of a Bible.  Of course they aren't wrong.

 

JOINT HEIR:  I don't have one yet, but I plan on getting one.  I don't see anything wrong with them.

 

SWORD OF THE LORD:  Leviticus says it is wrong to print marks on your body.  A Christian shouldn't do it.

 

GOD'S SERVANT:  That scripture has no application to tattoos.  That is legalism.

 

JOIN HEIR:  That's right God's Servant.  To say tattoos are wrong is legalism.

 

SWORD OF THE LORD:  It is not legalism.  It is in the Bible.  A Christian shouldn't get a tattoo.

 

MIND OF GOD:  I am with you JH and GS.  To come against tattoos is legalism.  Who is SOTL to judge another man's servant? 

 

One person asked for opinions, and everything goes fine until someone comes in and dares to disagree with the majority.  Rather than accept that one person thinks tattoos are wrong, they have to be demonized and silenced.  You can change the topic to anything.  The result is always the same.  I can start a thread on numerous subjects right now and argue both sides because I know what people are going to say. 

[*Zion*]

 

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.

 

 

I agree

[Guest shiloh357]

Legalism is not a Biblical term, so when people keep taking that secular term and applying it to Christianity, they are misusing it.  As such, people have been using it to come against anyone criticizing anything they are doing. 

 

That is not true.  They are not using it to come against anyone who is criticizing anyone else for anything they are doing wrong.  That is a false charge.  They have applied the term to people who use external trappings (like clothing, jewelry, makeup, etc.) to judge another person’s walk with the Lord.  In some cases, it has been a source of condemnation.  “If you don’t look the way I think the Bible says you should look, you are living in sin.”   That is legalism as it being applied.  We don’t really care about your nonsensical applicaion of it.  We care about the proper way the word is understood within the framework of the Christian world at large.  You appear to have your own customized definitions of theological concepts that you  try to pan off on the rest of us, as if it is genuine Christianity, and they aren’t anything of the sort.

 

As for claiming that people are misusing it by applying to Christianity,  you have been applying it to being obedient to God and justifying it in your own Christian walk. So to criticize others for applying it to Christianity when you have clearly been defending it as applying it to obeying God, you are displaying an immense degree of hypocrisy.

 

What leads to the "legalism" label goes like this.  A new person comes here and starts a thread.  They ask a question like "Is it wrong for a Christian to get a tattoo?"  They are looking for opinions, and then they begin to be posted. 

 

GOD'S SERVANT:  I have tattoos all over my arm.  One of a cross, another of praying hands, and another of a Bible.  Of course they aren't wrong.

 

JOINT HEIR:  I don't have one yet, but I plan on getting one.  I don't see anything wrong with them.

 

SWORD OF THE LORD:  Leviticus says it is wrong to print marks on your body.  A Christian shouldn't do it.

 

GOD'S SERVANT:  That scripture has no application to tattoos.  That is legalism.

 

JOIN HEIR:  That's right God's Servant.  To say tattoos are wrong is legalism.

 

SWORD OF THE LORD:  It is not legalism.  It is in the Bible.  A Christian shouldn't get a tattoo.

 

MIND OF GOD:  I am with you JH and GS.  To come against tattoos is legalism.  Who is SOTL to judge another man's servant? 

 

That is actually a gross oversimplification of the discussions I have seen on the board about tattoos.  But then I am not surprised.

 

One person asked for opinions, and everything goes fine until someone comes in and dares to disagree with the majority.  Rather than accept that one person thinks tattoos are wrong, they have to be demonized and silenced.  You can change the topic to anything.  The result is always the same.  I can start a thread on numerous subjects right now and argue both sides because I know what people are going to say.

 

No, you couldn’t.  You show an unswerving ability to completely misrepresent, overstate, and exaggerate what other people say whenever you quote them in your posts.   

[Guest Butero]

 

Legalism is not a Biblical term, so when people keep taking that secular term and applying it to Christianity, they are misusing it.  As such, people have been using it to come against anyone criticizing anything they are doing. 

 

That is not true.  They are not using it to come against anyone who is criticizing anyone else for anything they are doing wrong.  That is a false charge.  They have applied the term to people who use external trappings (like clothing, jewelry, makeup, etc.) to judge another person’s walk with the Lord.  In some cases, it has been a source of condemnation.  “If you don’t look the way I think the Bible says you should look, you are living in sin.”   That is legalism as it being applied.  We don’t really care about your nonsensical applicaion of it.  We care about the proper way the word is understood within the framework of the Christian world at large.  You appear to have your own customized definitions of theological concepts that you  try to pan off on the rest of us, as if it is genuine Christianity, and they aren’t anything of the sort.

 

As for claiming that people are misusing it by applying to Christianity,  you have been applying it to being obedient to God and justifying it in your own Christian walk. So to criticize others for applying it to Christianity when you have clearly been defending it as applying it to obeying God, you are displaying an immense degree of hypocrisy.

 

 

 

What leads to the "legalism" label goes like this.  A new person comes here and starts a thread.  They ask a question like "Is it wrong for a Christian to get a tattoo?"  They are looking for opinions, and then they begin to be posted. 

 

GOD'S SERVANT:  I have tattoos all over my arm.  One of a cross, another of praying hands, and another of a Bible.  Of course they aren't wrong.

 

JOINT HEIR:  I don't have one yet, but I plan on getting one.  I don't see anything wrong with them.

 

SWORD OF THE LORD:  Leviticus says it is wrong to print marks on your body.  A Christian shouldn't do it.

 

GOD'S SERVANT:  That scripture has no application to tattoos.  That is legalism.

 

JOIN HEIR:  That's right God's Servant.  To say tattoos are wrong is legalism.

 

SWORD OF THE LORD:  It is not legalism.  It is in the Bible.  A Christian shouldn't get a tattoo.

 

MIND OF GOD:  I am with you JH and GS.  To come against tattoos is legalism.  Who is SOTL to judge another man's servant? 

 

That is actually a gross oversimplification of the discussions I have seen on the board about tattoos.  But then I am not surprised.

 

 

 

One person asked for opinions, and everything goes fine until someone comes in and dares to disagree with the majority.  Rather than accept that one person thinks tattoos are wrong, they have to be demonized and silenced.  You can change the topic to anything.  The result is always the same.  I can start a thread on numerous subjects right now and argue both sides because I know what people are going to say.

 

No, you couldn’t.  You show an unswerving ability to completely misrepresent, overstate, and exaggerate what other people say whenever you quote them in your posts.   

 

That is exactly how things are done here at WB.  I didn't misrepresent, overstate or exagerate anything.  I hit the nail directly on the head concerning the way the anti-legalism crowd does things.  Lets take another topic.  Someone starts a thread asking if we should observe the seventh day sabbath. 

 

GOD'S SERVANT:  We are not under the law, so no.  We don't have to observe the Sabbath.

 

JOINT HEIR:  The Bible says that we aren't to judge anyone based on observing sabbaths.  Of course we don't have to keep the Sabbath.

 

JESUS FAN:  One day is the same as another.

 

GOD'S AMBASSADOR:  Just because we are under grace doesn't mean we don't have to keep the 10 commandments.  God didn't say we should just keep 9, but 10.  Yes, we must observe the Saturday sabbath.

 

JESUS FAN:  Here we go again. 

 

GOD'S SERVANT:  Yea, you can't go through one discussion without a legalist coming along and muddying things up.  Don't listen to him.  We aren't under the law anymore.  If he wants to live by the law, he needs to keep the whole law, and that is more than the 10 Commandments.

 

JOIN HEIR:  You tell him GS.  Only the very prideful would think you can live by the law. 

 

Legalism is a name given to anyone that criticizes anything you do, or who takes the position anything you do is wrong.  It is a way to silence them. 

[GoldenEagle]

How about we get back to the OP please folks? Thanks.

[Guest Butero]

How about we get back to the OP please folks? Thanks.

I think everyone agrees with the OP for the most part?  That is what is funny about this whole thing.  The only reason this has gotten this far is because of the word legalism.  We all see a problem in the church with people being made to feel bad if they don't do something huge for the Lord. 

[other one]

 

How about we get back to the OP please folks? Thanks.

I think everyone agrees with the OP for the most part?  That is what is funny about this whole thing.  The only reason this has gotten this far is because of the word legalism.  We all see a problem in the church with people being made to feel bad if they don't do something huge for the Lord.

Hummm,   now that is something to ponder...  maybe even way beyond this thread.

[Guest shiloh357]

I think the article shows that you can make legalism out of anything.  When you have to be "radical" and "missional" in order for your peers to approve of your walk with the Lord, that has become legalism.  

 

It has become a form of performance-based acceptance where you have these hoops you have to jump through.   It always leads to frustration because you have to find ways to either maintain your "radicalness" or increase it and do more just to keep your peers' respect.

 

God has not called everyone to the same type of ministry, but being radical doesn't take that into account.  It doesn't take into account that God has a different plan for each person's life and not everyone is called to the mission field, not everyone is called to homeless ministry, not everyone is called to every kind of minsistry.

 

It's legalism becuase it isn't about serving or obeying God.  It is about fitting into a mold that some Christian leaders have determined that everyone especially teens and twenty-somethings are supposed to fit into.

 

The Bible has a different notion of what being radical is.   In Paul's day, living in the Roman Empire and calling Jesus, "Lord" was radical and dangerous.  The only "lord" of the empire was Caesar and to present Jesus as Lord was to make Him a rival to Caesar and could cost you your life.

 

Being "radical" was to be willing to take up a cross and follow Jesus.  The cross represented everything you didn't want.  It was the loss of family, friends, reputation, honor, all for the sake of Christ. To be crucified with Christ was to identify with Him in His death, but also to be willilng to be scorned and to be a social outcast on His account.   In that day being "radical" meant you had to count the cost.  Today, being radical is about making one feel good.  Being radical is an end unto itself, and the cost isn't really that high.

 

We live in a world where human sexuality,  marriage and family have been redefined.  We live in a world where Christianity is being defined by the culture, where the authority of God's word is being challenged, even in the Church.  Being "radical" in light of the current culture means:

 

• Defining and practicing marriage where one man marries one woman and they remain faithful until they die.
• Defining human sexuality as sex belonging ONLY in the narrow corridor of a loving marriage and all other forms of sexualit are considered perversion
• God's Word is infallible, wholly inspired by God, immutable and serves as the final arbiter in all matters of Christian faith and practice.
• Raising godly, well-adjusted children to love and serve Christ.