What's your definition?

[Invisible_2_no1]

Define legalism in regards to Christianity.


:rulz

[countryroad]

My definition of legalisim would be trying to obtain God's acceptance and approval by works. Works could be the keeping of a sabbath day or a ritual like the Lord's Supper or any kind of religious work or duty. Problem is once someone gets into that mentality they can never do enough. It's an endless cycle and the assurance of salvation isn't certain to the legalist because it's always based upon performance.

I think we please God by faith, so the contrast would be salvation by grace through faith. When we believe on Jesus we become part of God's family and he then relates to us as his children. We experience discipline but not rejection. We have the love and favor that a parent gives to his children. If we can teach and correct our kids without rejecting them, then why can't God? Isn't he at least as good a parent as we are? If we can give good gifts to our kids, can't God do even better?

Another aspect of legalisim is the benefit that legalistic leaders derive from it. There is no more effetive way to control people and manipulate them. They will always look to the leaders for a sign of acceptance or rejection based upon their performance. So the legalistic teacher really takes the place of the Holy Spirit upon the throne of the heart only in a much lesser way because we look to the Spirit for the truth. If you look really closley at legalist teachers you will see that infallability is always implied. It's not said outright, but the assumption is that they are always right. That is fertile ground for being able to introduce new doctrines and rituals that have the effect of keeping people really busy and never having the time to stop and think about what they are engaged in. When they do pause it's only to look for the latest new teaching. "Ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."


Check out the book of Galatians for an expansion of these themes. I know you guys already know that book well, I just say that as a reminder.








PS- I have to add this in:


Luke 10:38. Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
39. And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.
40. But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
41. And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
42. But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.


Legalisim=

busy,busy,busy,busy,busy,busy,busy,busy,busy,busy, busy,busy,busy..........


But Mary sat at Jesus' feet and heard his word. She chose the good part and the one needful thing. No one could take it from her, and the Lord defended her for the choice that she made.


1Jn.2:27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.


Be true to the anointing that you have recieved of Him and that abides in you and you will be doing the needful thing that Mary chose, only for you Jesus dwells in your heart and sits upon the throne of your heart. That's the kingdom.

[countryroad]

Here's another kinda peculiar definition-

Legalisim is spending my time making bricks for someone's monument. If I question this then I have to find my own straw.

Sheesh.

So if this definition is correct then legalisim is slavery.




1Cor.3:
10. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13. Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
16. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?


Paul never built for his own glory, a wise masterbuilder builds for the glory of the Lord upon the one true foundation.

If someone builds with straw the day will declare it and those legalistic works will not abide in the presence of the Lord. Why not choose the gold, silver, and precious stones? Can't earn those, and we don't have enough to buy them either, and you can't find them just lying around.

In that day there will be no mixture, the fire will purify all things that the sons of Levi may present an offering to the Lord in righteousness.

[Being Conformed]

CR I think you hit the nail on the head. Unfortuneately, I struggle with legalism. Sometimes I struggle with the concept of obediance vs legalsim vs relationship and other times I don't.

God never ceases to amaze me how when I'm dealing with something I come to a forum and fiind that someone has posted on the topic.

I was looking around at other forums just last nite looking for a sound study of the book of Galatians.

Anyone want to start one here for those of us who are hardheaded?

[countryroad]

Anyone want to start one here for those of us who are hardheaded?

You should start it. Preachers learn as they preach too because real preaching is the Spirit speaking through the preacher. But if you do you are going to join the nutty brigade.


I'm gonna continue on with something, cause I do have this problem with preaching that shows up every now and then. What a nice problem to have!


James1:22. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.



If I'm going to be a doer of the law, or the nomos, then I will have to start at that particular mountain and at that point in time and also be limited to a relatively small portion of the Bible. I'll also be a great lover of history because my understanding of the scripture and it's application will be mainly historical and it's application will be even narrower.

If I'm going to be a doer of the logos, or the word, then I have to at least include promise......... which was way before the law, but really I have to go beyond time and into the eternal dimension of the Lord Jesus and his kingdom. No beginning and no end!


Rev.1:3. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Being a doer of the word includes keeping everything written in the book of Revelation too. How do you do that?

For a hint look at the Exodus. People are fine with that as history but when it comes to applying it to our experience today so that we can be doers of the word, that is where we start to get problems because ......why do I need an Exodus right now? That's just history right? Hehe!

[Invisible_2_no1]

Okay CR, see your point on "doers of the Word"...

So, how do we do the *do* part of the Word?

Do we hold to OT laws,

AND

NT laws, or alittle of both?

Do we pick some and choose what we think is best? Or do we follow all of them?

AND

If we follow all of them, at what point does it become legalistic?

[Invisible_2_no1]

Originally Posted by Being Conformed

Sometimes I struggle with the concept of obediance vs legalsim vs relationship and other times I don't.

Which is why I brought this up!!!!

I think its a common struggle and one not talked about enough.

[countryroad]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Mom

Okay CR, see your point on "doers of the Word"...

So, how do we do the *do* part of the Word?

In a nutshell we to do as Jesus did and speak as he spoke. The Gospels are like an instruction manual in the doing of the word because we see the word in action there, also the acts of the apostles are good for this because that book begins by saying "all that Jesus began to do and teach." So the Gospels are just the beginning, Jesus still does and still teaches through us as we are led by the Spirit, and not being under the works of the law. The law is a statute, but the Spirit gives life. The law was given to show us we can't do it on our own, it condemns, the letter kills but the Spirit brings life.

I see you personally praying for the sick and laying hands on them. "Lay hands on the sick and they shall recover." The Lord will bring people to you from time to time for you to pray for their healing. Has this already been happening with you?


Other doings of the word in general would be the fruits of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit. Those listings give a really good expansion on the James passage.

Here's a couple of others:


Jn.14:12. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.


1Peter4:10. As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
11. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.


Also, man is generic there, it means both men and women.

We are doers of the logos, not the nomos. The logos existed even before creation or before woman was taken out of man.

[marcie]

CR!.

:gopo

The law was given to show us we can't do it on our own, it condemns, the letter kills but the Spirit brings life.

i think the importance is we can't forget to LIVE! being with CHrist is a life changing experiance. If I wear makeup, dress up, have a cooler everynow and again, have short hair, let my son dress up for halloween, Put up a CHristmas tree with a star and nativity ,celebrate my Birthday, own a tv.Am I less of a Christian than someone who doesn't do those things. I mean i read the WORD daily, when I pray I try not be a hypacrite , I think in all it's legalities we can not be/do like the hypacrites do. What is in our hearts.

Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.


Christ said to give him our burdens and to be at peace why would be enslave ourselfs again. Why would we want our children/spouses to be ensaved. I am not saying just DO IT all. but there is a balance.

There is a fine line and we need to hear the voice of God through the Holy spirit to lead us. He is our comforter our guide.

I think in many ways we have (some of us) meet someone or been there.

Just my 2 cents

God Bless
marcie

[Invisible_2_no1]

For sake of discussion,

If I go to a church that doesn't preach dresses only, submission to my husband, don't celebrate pagan holidays and such...

Am I in the wrong?

For the Bible does say women are not wear that of a man's clothing, I am to submit to my husband, am to separate myself from the of the world...

when is it legalism and when is it obedience?

How do we explain that to a non-believer?

Originally Posted by countryroad

Also, man is generic there, it means both men and women.

We are doers of the logos, not the nomos. The logos existed even before creation or before woman was taken out of man.

I like how you put this CR.

I believe that too.

If we KNOW God wants us to do/act/behave in a certain way...

there's alot of different *ways* of being a Christian out there...

Can legalism fall into every denomination, or just a few? And why is that????

Are Quakers and Amish Legalists?

[Dan Bittleston]

Originally posted by JaM

If we KNOW God wants us to do/act/behave in a certain way...there's alot of different *ways* of being a Christian out there.

My understanding of "living a Christian life" is basically that each of us, who have accepted Christ as our personal savior, have instilled in us, by the Holy Spirit, a list of "personal convictions" that we are to do our best to abide by while living this earthly life.

To some people, smoking, drinking alcohol, wearing bikinis, wearing jewelry, not shaving, etc. are considered to be a "sin". They have "personal convictions" against doing these things. To them it would be a sin for them to do them. Other people do not have "personal convictions" against these things, therefore, it would not be a sin for them to do them.

Each of us have our "own" set of "personal convictions". Everybody does not have the same convictions, therefore what may be a sin for one person is not necessarily a sin for anybody else.

All to often, we tend to criticize others for what they may or may not be doing, based on "our personal convictions". This is being prejudice toward the other person. We do not know what their "personal convictions" are. This is where being long suffering, having tolerance with our fellow man and Christian love come into the picture. We are not to judge others, based on our convictions. Every person is an individual to God and to each other.

Yours in Christ,
Dan Bittleston

[Stan]

For the Bible does say women are not wear that of a man's clothing,

Do you mean this?...


Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.


It's a Hebraism that means the man is not to take the place of a woman and vise-a-versa in a sexual act.


Same with this...

1Co 11:14
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?


It's not talking about long hair.


One of the vows of a Nazerite is not to cut his hair. It was a show of strength and vitality and honor to God.


Num 6:5
All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.


Compare...

1Sa 1:11
And she vowed a vow, and said, O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.

It was to honor Yahveh.

For sake of discussion,

If I go to a church that doesn't preach dresses only, submission to my husband, don't celebrate pagan holidays and such...

Am I in the wrong?

Not if God has you there for a purpose.

[Invisible_2_no1]

The hair thing is one of those "legalistic tags" but let's address this one;

Originally Posted by Stan

Do you mean this?...


Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Yes. That is one of them...

It's a Hebraism that means the man is not to take the place of a woman and vise-a-versa in a sexual act.

You lost me?!



1Ti*2:9
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

_______________________________

*Clarke writes about the form of early dress in I Timothy 2:9:


That women adorn themselves, kai tas yunaikas en katastol kosmio. The apostle seems to refer here to different parts of the Grecian and Roman dress. The stola seems to have been originally very simple. It was a long piece of cloth, doubled in the middle, and sewed up both sides, leaving room only for the arms; at the top, a piece was cut out, or a slit made, through which the head passed. It hung down to the feet, both before and behind, and was girded with the zona round the body , just under the breasts. It as sometimes made with, sometimes without, sleeves; and, that it might sit the better, it was gathered on each shoulder with a band or buckle. Some of the Greek women wore them open on each side, from the bottom up above the knees, so as to discover a part of the thigh. These were termed phainomarides, showers (discoverers) of the thigh; but it was, in general, only young girls or immodest women who wore them thus.
The katastola seems to have been the same as the pallium or mantle, which, being made nearly in the form of the stola, hung down to the waist, both in back and front, was gathered on the shoulder with a band or buckle, had a hole or slit at the top for the head to pass through, and hung loosely over the stola, without being confined by the zona or girdle. . . . A more modest and becoming dress than the Grecian was never invented; it was, in great measure, revived in England about the year 1805, and in it, simplicity, decency, and elegance were united; but it soon gave place to another mode, in which frippery and nonsense once more prevailed. It was too rational to last; and too much like religions simplicity to be suffered in a land of shadows, and a world of painted outsides.

*http://www.bibleviews.com/Dress.html

My views on this tend more towards this person's;

http://dailywisdom.gospelcom.net/arc.../11/index.html



But there are those that would argue with me.

If I am to lean towards believing that God would want me to wear only a dress and I obey that conviction...and I believe ALL women/girls that profess to be a believer should wear dresses only, and I tell them so, am I a legalist? And if they refuse, have I just cast judgement?

And for sake of argument, men's state of dress in Paul's days were that of wearing long robe-like garments.

So if men today were to go "archaic" way of dressing as a man they should be wearing "dresses" too?!

Not if God has you there for a purpose.

To fix those people not stuck in my brand of legalism???


:jukid

[Stan]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Mom

The hair thing is one of those "legalistic tags" but let's address this one;

A legalistic tag according to who? It sounds like a word term made up from those blind leaders of the blind.

You lost me?!

It's a Hebraism that means the man is not to take the place of a woman and vise-a-versa. In other words, homosexuality is an abomination to God.


Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

It's no more talking about what they are wearing then 1 Cor.11:14 is talking about hair.

1Ti*2:9
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

Not the same subject matter of Deut. 22:5. Bullinger missed the boat on that one too.

_______________________________

*http://www.bibleviews.com/Dress.html

My views on this tend more towards this person's;

http://dailywisdom.gospelcom.net/arc.../11/index.html

*snip*
Secondly, these type of cloths are condemned as an abomination by God. Deuteronomy 22:5 states, "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these is an abomination to the Lord thy God." Well, one might say, isn't this a part of the Mosaic Law that Christ done away with? Brenneman answers this objection. Concerning a study of Deuteronomy, Brenneman wrote:

LOL. This person doesn't understand what Deut. 22:5 is talking about.

If I am to lean towards believing that God would want me to wear only a dress and I obey that conviction...

Hold on a sec. What do folks think the men wore back in those days? Pants and a T-shirt? The Assyrian Tablets show them of the captivity wearing the long dress. Pretty much the same thing the women wore. And the shorter skirts too. Like a Scottish kilt. Lot eaiser to fight with and ride with.

and I believe ALL women/girls that profess to be a believer should wear dresses only, and I tell them so, am I a legalist?

Where does the bible say anything about wearing a dress only? I would tell them to show me it. I understand the modest apparel the Holy Spirit spoke of through Paul. But no where in that definition does it say "dresses only". It's traditions of men that say that.

And if they refuse, have I just cast judgement?

Not if you didn't judge them.

And for sake of argument, men's state of dress in Paul's days were that of wearing long robe-like garments.

Look at some ancient pictures. They look like dresses.

So if men today were to go "archaic" way of dressing as a man they should be wearing "dresses" too?!

Yep!



And I like my jeans and a shirt just fine thank you very much. :kewl

Originally Posted by Stan

Not if God has you there for a purpose.

To fix those people not stuck in my brand of legalism???


:jukid

I think it's more of just a term used by the blind leaders of the blind. And yeah, God might just want you there.


__________



Are you ready to get into the Law?

I'll start.

What's the time element given in the following verse...


Isa 66:15
For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
Isa 66:16
For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.


If we let scripture dictate at what time this event will happen, what is that time element?

[Angel2Drew]

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God" (Deuteronomy 22:5, KJV). The context of this passage is the second giving of the law to the nation of Israel as they are poised to enter into the Promised Land. Deuteronomy 22:5 is an admonition not to live as a transvestite.

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works" (1st Timothy 2:9-10, KJV). The Greek word translated "modest" is the Greek word "kosmios" and this word is translated twice in the New Testament. It is seen once as "modest" in this passage and is once translated as "of good behavior" in 1st Timothy 3:1. It came to mean well-arranged, seemly and modest.

The word "apparel" is the Greek word "katastole" and it is translated as apparel only here in 1st Timothy. The meaning of the word "katastole" was to send or to let down or lower, and it was connected with "kastastello," which means to send. It was primarily a garment that was let down, and came to mean dress or attire in general, and in that day referred to a stole or a loose outer garment worn by kings and persons of rank.

"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any" (1 Corinthians 6:12, KJV)
http://www.gotquestions.org/women-wear-pants.html

Now.....

Drew works with two guys that attend a church that is full of legalism. For a few years now they have begged us to come visit and join their church. The first year Drew worked with these guys, just about every night I was faced with questions. For instants, they told Drew that I was going to hell because I was a stylist and I cut women's hair.

Then they told Drew I was going to hell because I did not ware a dress everyday, then it was I was going to hell because when we went to the beach I wore a swim suit and might I add that my swim suit is very modest, a full suit and the bottom is cut like shorts.
He asked what they wore to the beach and was told "A long dress and a long sleeve shirt." The men wear pants and a long sleeve shirt.

More over they came to church with us once and found more reason why were going to hell. First we sat together, at their church the women are on one side an the men on the other and I said amen to something and women are not allowed to say a word at their church.

The real kicker was this pass year at the Co Christmas party. I always dread going because they hold it at a bar, and everyone is drunk by 8pm I was not going to go this year, but learned that these two were and I went just to see how they were going to react and I thought that the wife's would be going.

Drew and I got there early, when the guys came in they did not have their wife's and they told Drew I should not be there either. As the night progressed a bunch of guys ordered beer, I was shocked to see these guys do the same. Not that having a beer is sin. As we sat there the conversation soon turned to us coming to their church.

No longer able to contain myself I just told them how I felt. Starting with how they do not believe with the Trinity and then to how they treat their wife's. One of them turned to Drew and says "See if you would join our church, she would have to keep her mouth shut." It ended with me telling them how sorry I was that they lived in such bondage. I am shocked that there are still people living like this. More over I feel extremely sorry for their wife's.

I thought we were to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling? I thought that in Christ there were no condemnation. For awhile I was truly upset with them thinking I was going to hell, but God showed me that He cares about relationship and He looks on the heart. Jesus came to set the captive free and those whom the Son sets free are free indeed....I praise God everyday for our freedom as Christian women.....