Page 7 of 9
Re: Legalism?
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:07 pm
by Sudsy
Wade wrote:
So please remember that the majority of the world does not have ANY Anabaptist church to choose from to attend, never mind multiple different flavors to choose from... Maybe they are where they are because that is where God has them and really they are bearing a hard cross but find His grace sufficient because they trust Him and His ways and not labels.
We are in the minority on this and happen to have many flavours of Mennonites to choose from in our location but what I see is few of these are actually reaching those unchurched outside of their ethnic background. Seems to me this should be a major concern within Anabaptism regarding how ethnic it is.
I would find it interesting to hear what the various Anabaptists here are doing in their congregations to reach folk without some kind of Mennonite/Anabaptist background. It makes me think back to when the Gospel was first offered to the Gentiles and many Jews had trouble with accepting them without them adopting Jewish traditions. I know what our MB church is doing and it is not an easy change for some. Some see changes as a slippery slope and so keep safe apart from 'outsiders' by not reaching out to them. Sorry, not about legalism but just a thought when Wade posted this. A separate thread possibility if anyone wants to go there.
Re: Legalism?
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:37 pm
by Joy
Josh wrote:Joy wrote:I've been associated with Baptists all my life, and I don't recall any of them ever calling another Baptist group non-Christian. And generally other groups only if they deny fundamentals of the faith according to Scripture, such as the deity of Christ, etc.
Joy, there is a multitude of splits of Baptist denominations, many of which in times past had divisions so deep they stopped recognising one another. Particular Baptist, Primitive Baptists, Two-Seed-In-The-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Independent Fundamentalist Baptists (KJV Only) who affiliated with Bob Jones, independent fundamentalist Baptists who do not affiliate with Bob Jones, and so forth.
Splitting is a different issue from calling groups non-Christian.
And the other thing is, I don't get from Jesus a sense of needing to be at peace with only our close brethren. We're family with all who belong to the Lord.
And perhaps there will be some surprises when God gives out rewards in Heaven, indicating whom God approved of.
Re: Legalism?
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:35 am
by Josh
Joy, so where do you draw the line? Are JWs and Mormons Christian or not?
Re: Legalism?
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:40 pm
by Wade
After more time in a Protestant setting and asking why we don't as a church do things the bible talks about? And then hearing over and over that it isn't required or the scripture doesn't mean what it says...
I'm thinking that always calling everything that is biblical "not a requirement" because it is always "faith alone" feels more legalistic than anything else.
What about us that want to obey?
Re: Legalism?
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:21 pm
by Valerie
Wade wrote:After more time in a Protestant setting and asking why we don't as a church do things the bible talks about? And then hearing over and over that it isn't required or the scripture doesn't mean what it says...
I'm thinking that always calling everything that is biblical "not a requirement" because it is always "faith alone" feels more legalistic than anything else.
What about us that want to obey?
Those that want to obey will know and be known by Jesus, who said "if you love me, obey my commandments. " I think that so many things were taught as "customs of the day" vs commandments for all time & cultures. The Jesus movement (not sure you were born yet,) had a big influence as far as that goes. At THAT time, Baptistd were pretty conservative & strict ( I think you're attending a Baptist Fellowship). I have a difficult time being one of the only women who covers the head ( a few Mennonites go to our church but wear smaller doilies). When sharing my discouragement my Orthodox friend said its a cross to bear. Bear it and don't dwell on everyone else's choices. Since I started covering, a couple women I knew began too. I had a boom "Glories Seen and Unseen, the Story of the Headcovering". Both women read the book & began to cover. It also, by reading it, makes you wonder how much error in teaching you've been under. If you want a copy of the book pm me and maybe share with your pastor. Could be a start. A black pastor of some Church was on internet sharing a message with his congregation about how he now believes in headcovering, that took humility. Could be a start to realize loving the LorLord means obeying Him too in all things- He gave His life for us!
Re: Legalism?
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:48 pm
by Joy
Josh wrote:Joy, so where do you draw the line? Are JWs and Mormons Christian or not?
Sorry, I never saw this until just now.
No, anyone who denies the fundamentals of Christianity cannot be considered a Christian. JW's deny the deity of Christ, and the Mormons say we can all be gods.
Re: Legalism?
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:21 pm
by Josh
Joy wrote:Josh wrote:Joy, so where do you draw the line? Are JWs and Mormons Christian or not?
Sorry, I never saw this until just now.
No, anyone who denies the fundamentals of Christianity cannot be considered a Christian. JW's deny the deity of Christ, and the Mormons say we can all be gods.
Who determines what the fundamentals are?
Re: Legalism?
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:11 pm
by Joy
Josh wrote:Joy wrote:Josh wrote:Joy, so where do you draw the line? Are JWs and Mormons Christian or not?
Sorry, I never saw this until just now.
No, anyone who denies the fundamentals of Christianity cannot be considered a Christian. JW's deny the deity of Christ, and the Mormons say we can all be gods.
Who determines what the fundamentals are?
Scripture itself stating what is essential to salvation.
For instance, the very existence of God.
...He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Repentance, as shown by obedience:
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. I John 2:4
Re: Legalism?
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:56 pm
by Outsider
I don't like the term "legalism". It is often offered as an excuse for the selective observance of the commands of God.
IMHO the term "legalism" can only be scripturally justified by Paul's writings comparing the "letter of the law" with the "spirit of the law".
I have read this thread through, rather than jumping in at the first point of contention I might come across because I have observed that many times a point I would like to make would be handled (oft-times better than I could) by someone else. Many of the things which I have seen described and decried as "legalism" I agree with in substance but not in labeling. I have seen hypocrisy, conventions of men, the religion of appearances (almost what I call "Utilitarian Christianity", without its honesty. UC is perfectly exemplified by Thomas Jefferson. Read his version of the bible.) cited as examples of "legalism", all of which really have nothing to do with the law.
My thoughts, in short form, are: "The letter of the law is death." Paul meant this literally. I would have literally been sentenced to death under the law of Moses for many things I have done over the course of my life- had I been caught at it. No appeal, no second chance. On the testimony of two or three witnesses, I would have died!!
What then is the "spirit" of the law?
Repentance.
12 Then they asked him, “Who is the Man who said to you, ‘Take up your bed and walk’?” 13 But the one who was (G)healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, a multitude being in that place. 14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, “See, you have been made well. (H)Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.”
She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
It is common to dismiss such things as a woman's head-covering as "legalism", but recall Moses when he struck the rock instead of speaking to it as God commanded!
He was not condemned to hell for it, but he did not go into the promised land on account of it!
7 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 8 “Take the rod; you and your brother Aaron gather the congregation together. Speak to the rock before their eyes, and it will yield its water; thus you shall bring water for them out of the rock, and give drink to the congregation and their animals.” 9 So Moses took the rod from before the Lord as He commanded him.
10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock; and he said to them, “Hear now you rebels! Must we bring water for you out of this rock?” 11 Then Moses lifted his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod; and water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their animals drank.
12 Then the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe Me, to hallow Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.” --Numbers 20
Equally, Jesus, though he had no sin, was baptized as if for the remission of sin!
16When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” --Matthew 3
Finally, how can you argue against a command as "legalistic" when it comes directly from the apostle who taught that we live under the "newness of the spirit" instead of the "oldness of the letter"?
As I have said, many of the things others have described as "legalism" I am in complete agreement with as being, at the very least, not expedient- if not downright sinful. I just wouldn't use the term. I just don't see it justified except when someone tries to tie a gentile to the whole of the Mosaic law. Any other use is to abuse scripture. And whether it will send you to hell or not is irrelevant.
10 For this reason, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. --1 Corinthians
Are you driving the angels away from your house of worship? Are you greater than Christ, that you should not obey?
Re: Legalism?
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 10:29 am
by Bootstrap
Outsider wrote:As I have said, many of the things others have described as "legalism" I am in complete agreement with as being, at the very least, not expedient- if not downright sinful. I just wouldn't use the term. I just don't see it justified except when someone tries to tie a gentile to the whole of the Mosaic law. Any other use is to abuse scripture. And whether it will send you to hell or not is irrelevant.
Since this word never occurs in Scripture, I don't know what the scriptural definition is.
I don't think legalism is the same thing as seriously trying to obey Scripture. I would call that obedience or discipleship. But there is room for different definitions of legalism, and the definition may depend on your theology. I think you are working from a definition that looks a lot like
this discussion in Wikipedia.
One concept of legalism, the belief that salvation can be earned by obedience to laws, is referred to in various New Testament books, including Galatians. In this case, some Jews who had become Christians believed that in order to obtain salvation, both faith in Christ (as Messiah), and obedience to the Mosaic laws were required, such as the cases of the circumcision controversy and the Incident at Antioch. Generally, however, these cases are referred to as the Judaizer controversy, rather than a legalism controversy, but the two are related.
Legalism refers to any doctrine which states salvation comes strictly from adherence to the law. It can be thought of as a works-based religion. Groups in the New Testament said to be falling into this category include the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Judaizers, and Nicolaitans. They are legalists because they emphasized obeying the Law of Moses, in the case of the Pharisees and Scribes, to the letter without understanding the concept of grace. Jesus condemned their legalism in Matthew 23. The Pharisees love of the praises of men for their strict adherence is said to be a prime example of legalism.
Legalism is sometimes confused with obedience. New Testament books such as Romans, speak of grace and obedience together. An example is found in Romans 1:5 (New American Standard Version) speaking of Christ 'through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for His name's sake...' The goal of receiving the grace was to bring about obedience of faith. Here grace, faith and obedience are tied together. Other references are in Acts 5:29, 32; Romans 16:19; 2 Corinthians 7:15; Hebrews 5:9.
Legalism is also confused with discipline, which is often spoken of in a positive light. See 1 Corinthians 9:27; 1 Timothy 4:7; 2 Timothy 1:7 and Hebrews 12:5–11.
A third common misunderstanding of legalism is the word law. Law in many places in the Bible refers to the Law of Moses, see also Biblical law in Christianity. In Galatians the Judaizers were trying to insist that salvation required that a person be circumcised prior to obeying the Law of Christ. Galatians 2:16 says, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (King James Version). The faith here is the Law of Christ and the law here is the Law of Moses. The legalism of the Judaizers was that obedience to the law of Moses was necessary to be saved.
Legalism in the New Testament is believed by some as being revealed by the life of Saul prior to his conversion. Some believe that Saul sought to redeem himself by his works of persecution of the church and its ultimate destruction. Acts 26:9–11 reveals, "I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities" (King James Version). Galatians 1:13–14 states, "For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers" (King James Version). These two texts emphasize the nature of Saul's religion, works.
However, in this passage the obedience is not tied to the obeying of specific Old Testament laws, such as keeping Sabbath or circumcision.