Let's talk legalism...anyone? Or should I duck and hide...

[BMW]

Really. This interests me a lot. I think I use the word legalistic a bit too freely and would have a time of it backing up what I would call "legalistic".

 

That said, I know I have been very hurt by what I would call legalism. But, when I look closer, it seems that I am hurt by a person/persons'/group of people's attitudes and choices that are what should be called abusive.

 

For example, I entered marriage believing that divorce is wrong and sinful (with a couple exceptions) and that a wife was to honor and obey her husband. Then, husband abused children (illegally, true abuse, not just a spanking here or there). I was verbally abused and emotionally manipulated. It took years for me to stand up for myself and get out of that. My husband used the Bible and what I have called "legalism" to control me.

 

There are many areas this happened in.

 

Birth control, any time, any reason was simply wrong. I had 7 babies in 10 years, battled cancer and depression... I have said that it is legalistic to live out "zero tolerance for birth control" type lifestyle... It disregards the mother's life and role. Is that use of "legalism" correct or off base? (I ask genuinely, I love God, am a Christian and study the Bible, I point no fingers at individuals, but know that there are groups of people who believe along these lines)

 

Wearing dresses. My opinion is that the scriptures say a woman should not wear men's clothing, so taking it to dresses only becomes legalistic. My conviction is that I should dress for the occasion, dress provocatively ONLY for my husband and dress in a feminine way. How is the term legalism used here? When is something legalistic or not?

 

Celebrating holidays/birthdays... we don't really need to discuss these issues, I just wonder where do we draw a line and say "this is legalistic" "this is not legalistic"??

 

When we discuss convictions and issues on the board, this term does come up... so, dear favorite public forum of mine, what is legalism?

 

(My examples were to show how I use the word, but I do not put them out to say I am right or wrong about an issue or that any of you are right or wrong... although I have strong beliefs on the issues, that isn't necessarily what this is about)

[Heather in Neverland]

I pulled this off the web once and I think it explains it pretty well (this is just the excerpt of it that spoke to me):

 

Legalism could be definied as any attempt to rely on self-effort to either attain or maintain our justification before God. In Paul's Epistle to the Galatians he warned them sternly about such false understandings of the gospel when he asked the offenders: "After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" (Gal.3:3). Legalism always seems to have one thing in common: it's theology denies that Christ is sufficient for salvation. That some additional element of self-effort, merit or faithfulness on our part is necessary.

 

Bill Baldwin has put together a brief definition of legalism which I think is helpful:

 

2. Attempting to be justified by one's own works.

 

3. Attempting to be sanctified by one's own works

 

 

7. Attempting to attain godliness by a systematic change of behavior

 

8. Obedience that does not spring from a renewed heart

 

9. Any supposition that externally righteous acts have any value on their own, even as conduct that prepares the way for either

 

12. Attempting to gain assurance of salvation solely or primarily on the basis of the sign of outward works

[sheryl]

Smile here. :001_smile: Last Wednesday in Bible study I was asking a question which may seem silly to some and I felt embarassed and rigid on the issue. So, I made light of it and said, "I'm legalistic". The other woman said, "What's legalistic about that...is it"?

 

I think as believers we are to be convicted of G-d's Word speaking to us. The OT is of course filled with legalism. And, to this day there is carry over of legalism. But, in the NT we are not "bound" to offer animal sacrifices. We are "covered" in the blood of Jesus Who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

 

So, a definition. Is it being "unnecessarily" bound by man's opinions and/or rules? We are bound by rules: drive a certain speed limit, don't abuse etc. And, in fact these are "laws" designed to serve and protect.

 

But, "unnecessary" acts of rituals may be a better description.

 

I could write more, but will stop. I do agree with what you wrote.

[Sputterduck]

Awww. I've been there as well. It took me years to divorce my abusive husband. I thought I was doing the right thing by staying. When my son was two, I left for him. I couldn't stay and have my son grow up in fear, or even worse, have him grow up to be his father. The final decision was made one day when I was holding my sobbing son who had been scared by daddy, again.

 

Once I finally did make the decision to leave, my support system left me. I kept the abuse secret for a long time because I thought people would tell me to leave. Instead once it was all out, they told me to stay and that God was upset with me. Losing my support system was far harder than losing my marriage.

 

Legalism can damage people at their most vulnerable moments.

 

I have to say that had I not not seen how bad legalism can hurt people, I would have been a terrible Christian. Really terrible. Legalism and a complete lack of grace was easy for me at one time. I am completely changed on that now.

 

I define legalism by the examples given in the Bible by Jesus where the Jewish leaders of the time were upset that Jesus healed on the Sabbath. Jesus was acting out of love, the leaders were acting out of legalism.

 

Justice and love find a beautiful balance in God. Either one out of balance is wrong.

[Erica in PA]

This is how I personally define legalism: being dogmatic about an issue which Scripture does not clearly define; in other words, stating as black and white an issue which God has left gray in His Word. For example, the Bible says to dress modestly. In my opinion, it is legalistic to firmly define what that means, across the board, in every case. There is an element of opinion in the application of that Scriptural principle, and that should be acknowledged.

 

I also think that it can mean seeking to win salvation or please God through works, rather than by faith. More often, though, I think of legalism in the first way.

[OnTheBrink]

In my mind, legalism is asserting that one's salvation or favor with God is based on extra-biblical rules or rules created from a wrong interpretation, or currently cultural interpretation, of Scripture.

 

Take dress, for instance. Scripture says for women not to dress as a man, but does that mean wear dresses only? Hmmm. I don't think so. I think it means, in your dress, look like a woman. I wear jeans and I guarantee you, I don't look masculine. In ancient times, men didn't wear levis and button down shirts, they wore tunics or togas or some other "dress like" form of clothing. So, to not dress as a man back then would be what? To wear pants? LOL No.

[PineFarmMom]

IMO, legalism is when you attach certain rules, behaviors, etc., to gaining access to heaven/God when the ONLY means for that is done and has been done through the shed blood of Christ. Everything that tries to "earn" that is legalism. I think many of the things you listed can be done from a right heart with a true desire to be obedient out of love for God, the leading by His Spirit, and a heart-felt desire to be one of his disciples.

 

I've met too many people who made those acts part of their horizontal behavior in the world, i.e., for the approval of man. No matter how good that looks to others, it's still ugly in the heart and a form of legalism.

 

The heart is the issue, IMO. The reason behind the behaviors and decisions is the key to this. I think this the reason that it is so very important to "walk by the spirit" and not by the flesh.

 

I do believe there are areas that we are clearly to follow. There are some that just are not so cut-and-dry.

 

An example: I've made a firm decision, out of love for God and due to my own past abuse of it, to never drink alcohol again. There isn't anything "unbiblical" about drinking alcohol as long as it is not abused. If I decided that my friend, who is a Christian, shouldn't ever drink a drop of alchol again and I told that person so, that would be legalism on my part. If that person chose to follow me and my convictions and quit drinking because I said so and not out of a love for God, that would be legalism. That's my opinion of it all. YMMV.

[tex-mex]

IMO, legalism is when you attach certain rules, behaviors, etc., to gaining access to heaven/God when the ONLY means for that is done and has been done through the shed blood of Christ. Everything that tries to "earn" that is legalism. I think many of the things you listed can be done from a right heart with a true desire to be obedient out of love for God, the leading by His Spirit, and a heart-felt desire to be one of his disciples.

 

I've met too many people who made those acts part of their horizontal behavior in the world, i.e., for the approval of man. No matter how good that looks to others, it's still ugly in the heart and a form of legalism.

 

The heart is the issue, IMO. The reason behind the behaviors and decisions is the key to this. I think this the reason that it is so very important to "walk by the spirit" and not by the flesh.

 

I do believe there are areas that we are clearly to follow. There are some that just are not so cut-and-dry.

 

An example: I've made a firm decision, out of love for God and due to my own past abuse of it, to never drink alcohol again. There isn't anything "unbiblical" about drinking alcohol as long as it is not abused. If I decided that my friend, who is a Christian, shouldn't ever drink a drop of alchol again and I told that person so, that would be legalism on my part. If that person chose to follow me and my convictions and quit drinking because I said so and not out of a love for God, that would be legalism. That's my opinion of it all. YMMV.

 

:iagree: Very nicely stated. It is a heart matter that those looking from the outside may not understand.

[Ginevra]

When we discuss convictions and issues on the board, this term does come up... so, dear favorite public forum of mine, what is legalism?

 

To me, legalism is imposing onto others convictions that are meant for yourself. Thus, if a woman believes God has placed a conviction in her heart not to use birth control, then IMO, *she* shouldn't, but it is not for her to convict other people of her belief. If she does attempt to convict others, that is legalism. However, I can understand how this gets clouded up, because if the person feels the conviction through some sort of scripture, it then seems obvious to them that other Christians who believe in the authority of scripture should come to the same conclusion. If others don't, it appears to the convicted person that the unpersuaded are simply ignoring scripture. :blink:

[Elizabeth Conley]

I've seen the term "legalism" abused, in that I've seen people who simply didn't want to stop lying and stealing complain that those of us asking them to clean up their act were being "legalistic".

 

Now when people drivel on about legalism I just yawn. It's such a red herring issue. We all know salvation is not attained through our own efforts, but there is an obvious place in Christian life for decent behavior.

 

When people are determined to continue degrading themselves, they shouldn't shriek "legalism, legalism, I'm resisting the horrors of legalism!" in an effort to cover their depravity. They should go ahead and lie and steal to their hearts content without all that drama. It's not like they fool anyone but themselves.

 

When people point to various Christian sects and accuse them of being legalistic, they're usually either mistaken or simply looking for imaginary things to complain about. A closer look at the actual understanding and practice of the group in question usually shames prejudice with fact. Genuine instances of institutionalized legalism are scarcer than hen's teeth.

 

This is not the sort of thing I'd worry about.

[catalinakel]

sure, I'll play.

We cannot merit God's favor. Period. Christ has purchased for us favor with God. Alone. Legalism is when we attempt to circumvent that which Christ freely gives by attempting to earn God's favor through what we do or do not do. I hate legalism. I love Christ.

[Elizabeth Conley]

Here's a helpful scriptural answer to anyone struggling with the false dichotomy between faith and works:

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/salvation-faith-alone.html

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

My small group studied this last night---

 

James says we should keep the royal law: Love your neighbor as yourself. He then goes on to say (paraphrased) that if we want to be a stickler for the mosaic law, then we have to realize that as soon as we break one law, we are a law breaker. We are just as much a law breaker by not loving our neighbor (basically everyone) as we are as if we had committed murder or adultery. We are all (Christians) free from judgement for breaking the law. Therefore, we should show mercy to all people, just as God has shown mercy to us.

 

Is it legalistic to hold ourselves to a certain (non-salvation) standard out of a desire to serve God? No, as long as we do not condemn ourselves when we find ourselves unable to meet those standards.

 

Is it legalistic to insist that others uphold teachings and standards that have nothing to do with salvation? Yes.

 

It is my opinion that each person must "work out his own salvation, with fear and trembling" giving others the freedom to do the same.

[Denisemomof4]

oh wow, I'm so sorry for your hard life! :grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

 

I was just sharing through PM's with a sweet gal here :seeya: about legalism. She had been brought up in a legalistic home, I was not. But when I became a Christian, I was immediately told to give up music, tv, wine, read the bible minimum of half hour a day, pray, stop wearing make-up, give up the pants, TITHE (tithe, when I JUST became a Christian, I was a SAHM and dh was an UNBELIEVER? Really? I never even approached dh with this one) stop wearing jewelry, then the celebration of Christmas came in. It was so oppressive. I felt like I could never measure up and like God couldn't love me as I was.

 

Then I found a new church.

 

I learned not to lean on ANYONE'S teaching or understanding, not even a pastor. I've seen many a pastor preaching on THEIR beliefs, and they're not always biblically based. Anyone is entitled to their beliefs, but God works in all of us differently. If I felt led to do or not do something, I turned into prayer, TRULY seeking God's desire for my own. He has NEVER failed me.

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug: Are you now raising all seven kids by yourself? I'm so sorry you had such a difficult past. Your EX sure didn't live up to his responsibility to love his wife as Christ loves the church or do not exasperate your children.

[Denisemomof4]

sure, I'll play.

We cannot merit God's favor. Period. Christ has purchased for us favor with God. Alone. Legalism is when we attempt to circumvent that which Christ freely gives by attempting to earn God's favor through what we do or do not do. I hate legalism. I love Christ.

 

EXCELLENT!!!

[BMW]

So, then, doesn't it seem like we can disagree on just about anything and cry out "legalism" to the opposing view?

 

So, take a few of your own hot topic beliefs that you feel strongly about... what makes it NOT legalistic? Take an opposing belief... what makes it legalistic? Why?

 

So... I can take what is mentioned here and say...

 

Dresses only is legalistic because the Bible says to not dress like a man and doesn't get into detail.

 

Birth Control... hmmm... not a salvation issue... so, legalistic? Does each opposing side consider the other view legalistic or just one side?

 

I know I originally asked just about the word legalistic... but, how do you apply it??

[BMW]

Thank you, Denisemomof4! I appreciate you sharing your experiences. I agree, very oppressive.

 

As I waded through the trauma of divorce, my new dh was grieving over the loss of his wife to cancer. We met and married. I am now a sahm once more with a kind, loving man. It is amazing how I feel... just the other day I posted on facebook that I felt like I'd been given the moon and didn't know what to do with it (from an Anne of Green Gables book or movie). It wonderful to be happy and not be bracing for the next episode of abuse. To know that we wont have that drama this week... or the next. Now, with all these kids (my 7 and his 2), there is teen drama and childrearing drama... but is SOOO much better...

[Elizabeth Conley]

So, then, doesn't it seem like we can disagree on just about anything and cry out "legalism" to the opposing view?

 

 

 

Yep.

[HerdingCats]

When we discuss convictions and issues on the board, this term does come up... so, dear favorite public forum of mine, what is legalism?

 

I believe legalism is any instance in which we take the law out of the spirit in which it was intended and bludgeon ourselves or others with it in order to "please God." God did not give us explicit rules for every situation and circumstance over all cultures across time. In the Mosaic laws we get a glimpse of what this kind of explicit arrangement looks like. As a Christian, I believe we have the Holy Spirit now guiding us toward the higher law of love. The "yeast of the Pharisees" we are admonished to avoid is this tendency to return to the rules-based, performance salvation instead of being changed from the inside out.

 

I agree with those who post about specific personal convictions being exactly that, personal and specific that person. If you take your personal conviction and inwardly become self-righteous about it, you have been tripped up by legalism.

[catalinakel]

So, then, doesn't it seem like we can disagree on just about anything and cry out "legalism" to the opposing view?

 

So, take a few of your own hot topic beliefs that you feel strongly about... what makes it NOT legalistic? Take an opposing belief... what makes it legalistic? Why?

 

So... I can take what is mentioned here and say...

 

Dresses only is legalistic because the Bible says to not dress like a man and doesn't get into detail.

 

Birth Control... hmmm... not a salvation issue... so, legalistic? Does each opposing side consider the other view legalistic or just one side?

 

I know I originally asked just about the word legalistic... but, how do you apply it??

 

:grouphug:Legalism is the keeping of the law. If we were capable of keeping the law, Christ would not have had to die. Cry out to God if you must cry out. Judge not, lest you be judged. Rest in God alone. Be anxious for nothing (else). Be at peace. Mercy triumphs over judgement.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Well, I like to think of it this way. Being a Christian was not meant to be a burden. Jesus said ,"My yoke is easy, my burden is light."

 

I know I used to be far more legalistic than I am now, and I am probably still more than I should be. I recognized that when I was close to a breakdown a few years ago. Since then I have been more careful to think through my reasons for doing things and have even revised many of my formerly strong opinions. I know I had burdened myself unnecessarily with man's rules that didn't really have anything to do with my relationship with Christ. It also kept me from fully fellowshipping with some very lovely people who thankfully have no idea how harsh my opinions were at the time.

 

I believe God is not sneaky and out to get us when we do not dot every "i" and cross every "t." I also believe that in matters which really count we can clearly see what he wants or does not want from us from scripture. That is what I put my confidence in. In my mind if anything is not clearly stated , if anything can be disputed, then it is not worth making a fuss over.

 

Example: I wore dresses exclusively for about 3 years. After the breakdown I mentioned, I thought about this practice of mine. Many times I had felt uncomfortable, inconvenienced, and downright frumpy. Before I started the practice, I did not dress immodestly, but I had listened to a couple of other homeschooling moms from a certain background talk about this issue and seeing them in their dresses all the time made me feel immodest. (I am not blaming them, that's just the way I felt.) I later realized this unnecessary rule in my life was a burden. I laid it at the feet of God. What a relief! That year I laid many such burdens down.

 

The strange thing is, those ladies also eventually gave up the practice. They also admitted to me what a burden their very large families were to them and how they dreaded having more children at a certain point. They had been tv free and they started watching tv. Their older kids started dating and going to movies, the girls wore skirts above their knees, things that they never would have allowed before. Before I knew it, I, who had been the most liberal, was now the most conservative. And I was just living life the way I once did before I was influenced by this legalistic group.

 

Thankfully, God gave me a terrific husband who has never changed through the years. His is a simple faith that never laid any burdens on me, I did it all to myself and to a much lesser extent to my older children.

 

One thing I have done in the last years is to read through the New Testament, especially taking note of specific commands that apply to everyone in all times. Those are the things I try to hold as my standards, nothing more.

[tex-mex]

Birth Control... hmmm... not a salvation issue... so, legalistic? Does each opposing side consider the other view legalistic or just one side?

 

I know I originally asked just about the word legalistic... but, how do you apply it??

 

Anything we do for Christ can become legalistic. I think of legalism as being on par with taking a vow. God sees that as a serious matter. There is some confusion on what is legalistic and what is not. It is legalistic to think by living a pure clean life and being good will earn your way to heaven. Much like trying to swim from the coast of CA to Hawaii. It cannot be done. Salvation is earned thru Jesus' death on the cross and that is the way to eternal life. It is a gift we do not deserve.

 

It isn't legalism for Christians to establish certain standards for their personal behavior. Just because a person makes the personal choice to abstain from alcohol, not celebrate Christmas, not watch R rated movies, or pornography -- doesn't make them legalistic. Choosing to do a daily bible study, not watching TV, or reading only certain genres of literature also does not make one legalistic. However -- if that person thinks that by keeping those personal standards or rules will make them "more spiritual" than others or will earn him entrance into heaven (salvation), then they have become legalistic.

 

One danger with the grace and freedom we have been given by salvation is that in our personal choices we could cause another believer to "stumble" or walk away from God by our actions. For example, I have a glass of wine every now and then... but if I am visiting my recovering alcoholic sister in Christ and take her out to dinner... and drink wine in front of her... then I have become a stumbling block and poor witness. I am not being legalistic when I choose not to drink in front of my friend -- nor am I losing my salvation (if I drink alcohol) or proving my faith is superior to others (if I abstain). My (quiet) act of simply choosing to order a soda on the menu is my love for God and others to not give cause for my friend to stumble and slip into old habits.

 

Ditto on if the Legalism Police came knocking on your door and demanded you stop celebrating Christmas. On the other thread, gals were sharing their personal choice -- they were not forcing us to choose what they were doing. I actually learned a lot by reading that thread. But is it for me?? No. But I will respect those who choose to not celebrate Christmas. They have that right.

 

Some folks I know (I come from a non-denominational charismatic faith) have taken what is known as a Nazarite Vow. This has nothing to do with the person's eternal salvation -- but how they walk their daily walk as a witness to others. Personally, I couldn't do that vow. But others seem to be able to. Why judge?

Edited October 13, 2009 by tex-mex

[Erica in PA]

So, then, doesn't it seem like we can disagree on just about anything and cry out "legalism" to the opposing view?

 

 

 

No, I don't think so. It's not when you merely have a conviction about something, because we all have to decide for ourselves and our families how we will apply what the Bible teaches. We have to decide what does dresssing modestly mean, whether we should ever drink a glass of wine, etc. It's when you believe that if you do otherwise, or someone else does otherwise, that they are sinning... when the Bible doesn't say that.

 

For example, if someone believes that across the board, wearing only dresses is the only acceptable way for women to dress, and that those who wear anything other than dresses is sinning, then that is legalistic, because that is a subjective application that you have decided on, and are now holding up as *the standard* and applying to others.

 

When it comes down to it, I don't feel *strongly* about many standards that are not directly biblical. There's not a lot that I could say, "That is WRONG!" if the Bible doesn't spell it out pretty clearly.

[Joanne]

It is very hard for me to discuss this topic without specifics inspired by my own experience.

 

Legalism is when non salvational issues are imposed as if they are Law.

 

Legalism is when living in communion with God is an obligation rather than a celebration.

 

Legalism is when instead of wearing your faith like a "loose, comfortable" garment, it's contricting and scratchy and icky.

 

Like a good parent, God does not make it hard for us to be in relationship with him. He does not set us up to fail with tricks such as predictable fertility signs *and* not wanting some of us to make individual procreation decisions.

 

Legalism is when being a Christian is more like incarceration than liberation.

 

Legalism is an attitude, a thinking paradigm, a philosophy and a behavior. Each decision can be scrutinized as to "legalism or not" but it's the thinking and attitude behind it that decides the legalism, not what side of the "debate" you end up on.

 

Legalism kills (figurately, mostly, but sometimes literally).

[GWOB]

I pulled this off the web once and I think it explains it pretty well (this is just the excerpt of it that spoke to me):

 

Legalism could be definied as any attempt to rely on self-effort to either attain or maintain our justification before God. In Paul's Epistle to the Galatians he warned them sternly about such false understandings of the gospel when he asked the offenders: "After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" (Gal.3:3). Legalism always seems to have one thing in common: it's theology denies that Christ is sufficient for salvation. That some additional element of self-effort, merit or faithfulness on our part is necessary.

 

Bill Baldwin has put together a brief definition of legalism which I think is helpful:

 

2. Attempting to be justified by one's own works.

 

3. Attempting to be sanctified by one's own works

 

 

7. Attempting to attain godliness by a systematic change of behavior

 

8. Obedience that does not spring from a renewed heart

 

9. Any supposition that externally righteous acts have any value on their own, even as conduct that prepares the way for either

 

12. Attempting to gain assurance of salvation solely or primarily on the basis of the sign of outward works

 

Your whole post needs to be repeated, but I especially love the part I placed in red.

 

I was raised in what I would deem a legalistic home. My parents beat the snot out of me in the name of God. I'm not talking spankings here and there, but CPS called because I showed up to school repeatedly with bruises. Legalism leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. Yes, I do believe the Bible is infallible. HOWEVER, man's interpretation is quite fallible. Wearing a dress just ain't gonna get you to heaven. Jesus will, though. Beating your kid in the name of God ain't gonna get you to heaven. Jesus will. Whatever you think you can do to get to heaven will not work. Only Jesus works. You can let your hair grow long, not read "Harry Potter", and not showcase the "books", but it will not matter one bit to God. Jesus is what matters. Do you know how incredibly liberating that is to this not-even-halfway-decent Christian? Because let me tell you, I fail miserably each and every day. But I have Jesus, so I'm covered.

[Lovedtodeath]

I stopped reading here. Wow. Great responses!

it's theology denies that Christ is sufficient for salvation. That some additional element of self-effort, merit or faithfulness on our part is necessary.

 

Sorry Heather, I agree with most of your post, but I am quoting the part that I have to squabble with:tongue_smilie: This to me seems to say that nothing is necessary for salvation. Scriptures speak of staying with the truth, enduring to the end, and faith without works is dead, so I'd have to disagree with that idea.

I've met too many people who made those acts part of their horizontal behavior in the world, i.e., for the approval of man. No matter how good that looks to others, it's still ugly in the heart and a form of legalism.

:iagree:

 

Is it legalistic to hold ourselves to a certain (non-salvation) standard out of a desire to serve God? No, as long as we do not condemn ourselves when we find ourselves unable to meet those standards.

? With all this talk of "non-salvational", I wonder what everyone is meaning by that. I think my idea is probably different. ?

 

Yep.

:iagree::D

 

I believe legalism is any instance in which we take the law out of the spirit in which it was intended and bludgeon ourselves or others with it in order to "please God."

Best answer ever! Divorce is the biggest thing that I see people do this with. You have me trying to think of more now...

[Lovedtodeath]

Legalism is when being a Christian is more like incarceration than liberation.

 

Legalism kills (figurately, mostly, but sometimes literally).

:iagree:Wonderfully worded!

[canadianmum]

Well said, ladies! I especially liked the way Tex Mex and Heather in NC put it. Here's my experience:

 

We happen to embrace the "open womb" view, as well as home schooling, and if that's not enough, we keep our children in during the church service. In our fellowship, there are a few like-minded families along with us, but we've never asked for special favours or attentions. Our beliefs turned out, unbeknown to most of us, to be a point of division in our rather small fellowship. It came out in things like: there are a few families (the children of which would have made up a significant portion of the roster!)who didn't participate in Sunday school, and because our church is small, those who did want Sunday school for their children were quite over-worked by their efforts, and felt very alone. We had to have a Family Forum to sort it all out, but it came down to what is being discussed here; namely, was each "side" going to concede that their views, while being (hopefully) thoughtful convictions on the part of each family, were not points on which to divide our fellowship? We had to come to the place where we could say: yes, I do hope you'll come to the conclusions to which I have, but you need to do this because (like others have said here) the Holy Spirit has lead you though Scripture to this conclusion. (If you do so out of some kind of outward pressure and fear of Man, then the Bible says anything that isn't of faith is sin!) Conversely, I cannot, in truth, say that those who don't come to the same conclusions as I (as far as the practice of the faith, and I'm not talking about willful, conscious, orthodox sinning) are less of a Christian than I am! May I never come across as that stumbling block in the Scriptures!

 

Judgment within the Church is biblical, but that isn't in the sense that God has sanctioned a self-righteousness that puts ourselves above any other believer. That's the Lord's place, and He is the knower of all hearts and motivations of the heart. Legalism is a trap, as has been said, and, since it so easily degenerates into unrighteous judgments, needs to be set aside in favour of allowing the Lord to move in individual hearts and families.

 

I believe if we were to all posture ourselves in situations of disagreement with the attitude of "Lord, what do You want me to see here? Where am I not hearing You?", then we'll spend more time "speaking the truth in love", and less time worrying about whether or not the other person is going to get the heavenly lightening bolt!

 

blessings, and thanks for listening,

Nancy.

[canadianmum]

Carmen, this may be another topic, but I'd like to respectfully submit that the Bible teaches that salvation is by grace through faith alone, not works, that no man may boast. Spending eternity with the Lord is not in any way contingent on our efforts. I'm not even touching the "once saved, always saved" argument here; perseverance is not a condition of salvation, but our salvation IS to be worked out with fear and trembling, because our standing once we get to heaven is contingent on our good works done through faith here in this time on earth. I won't list the applicable scriptures. I'm assuming that since you good-naturedly responded to a post, I can do the same, and don't at all mean anything personal by it! Thanks, and feel free to comment.

 

Again, I apologize if this isn't the correct way to respond to Carmen's comment...(I'm still pretty new at this game).

 

blessings to all,

Nancy.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

perseverance is not a condition of salvation, but our salvation IS to be worked out with fear and trembling, because our standing once we get to heaven is contingent on our good works done through faith here in this time on earth.

I would like to know where the bolded part comes from. Thank you for responding to my post.

 

[sunshine]

I pulled this off the web once and I think it explains it pretty well (this is just the excerpt of it that spoke to me):

 

Legalism could be definied as any attempt to rely on self-effort to either attain or maintain our justification before God. In Paul's Epistle to the Galatians he warned them sternly about such false understandings of the gospel when he asked the offenders: "After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" (Gal.3:3). Legalism always seems to have one thing in common: it's theology denies that Christ is sufficient for salvation. That some additional element of self-effort, merit or faithfulness on our part is necessary.

 

Bill Baldwin has put together a brief definition of legalism which I think is helpful:

 

2. Attempting to be justified by one's own works.

 

3. Attempting to be sanctified by one's own works

 

 

7. Attempting to attain godliness by a systematic change of behavior

 

8. Obedience that does not spring from a renewed heart

 

9. Any supposition that externally righteous acts have any value on their own, even as conduct that prepares the way for either

 

12. Attempting to gain assurance of salvation solely or primarily on the basis of the sign of outward works

 

 

I like it!:iagree:

[SheWillFly]

For me legalism is a belief where there is no room for grace and mercy.

[Spy Car]

I pulled this off the web once and I think it explains it pretty well (this is just the excerpt of it that spoke to me):

 

Legalism could be definied as any attempt to rely on self-effort to either attain or maintain our justification before God. In Paul's Epistle to the Galatians he warned them sternly about such false understandings of the gospel when he asked the offenders: "After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" (Gal.3:3). Legalism always seems to have one thing in common: it's theology denies that Christ is sufficient for salvation. That some additional element of self-effort, merit or faithfulness on our part is necessary.

 

Bill Baldwin has put together a brief definition of legalism which I think is helpful:

 

2. Attempting to be justified by one's own works.

 

3. Attempting to be sanctified by one's own works

 

 

7. Attempting to attain godliness by a systematic change of behavior

 

8. Obedience that does not spring from a renewed heart

 

9. Any supposition that externally righteous acts have any value on their own, even as conduct that prepares the way for either

 

12. Attempting to gain assurance of salvation solely or primarily on the basis of the sign of outward works

 

From an outsider perspective both the quotation of Paul's and the points listed by Bill Baldwin seem like a false legalism of "by faith alone" that undermines the positive demand to do acts to human kindness and good deeds, absent which, "faith" is dead.

 

James said it better than me.

 

James 2:14-29 KJV

 

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

 

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

 

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

 

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

 

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

 

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

 

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

[Lovedtodeath]

From an outsider perspective both the quotation of Paul's and the points listed by Bill Baldwin seem like a false legalism of "by faith alone" that undermines the positive demand to do acts to human kindness and good deeds, absent which, "faith" is dead.

 

James said it better than me.

 

James 2:14-29 KJV

 

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

 

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

 

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

 

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

 

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

 

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

 

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Wow. I am agreeing with and thanking Spycar in a religious thread. Thanks Bill. That is what I was trying to say. I also enjoyed the extensive quote.

[PineFarmMom]

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

 

I agree with much of what you said. About Rahab, I believe she saw the truth of God and His hand on the Israelites. She knew the scoop and her odds, and because of that it led her to believe. It was faith that saved her, IMO...faith in the one true God. So the action did save her, but the action was based on faith.

[Heather in Neverland]

From an outsider perspective both the quotation of Paul's and the points listed by Bill Baldwin seem like a false legalism of "by faith alone" that undermines the positive demand to do acts to human kindness and good deeds, absent which, "faith" is dead.

 

.

 

We are just looking at it from different angles. We are saved by faith alone. Nothing we did or can do contributes to our salvation so that we cannot boast. BUT because we are saved it expresses itself in our good works (not the other way around).

 

Legalism is a matter of the heart. I can refuse to touch a drop of alcohol, wear only dresses, head cover, help the poor, etc. But that is not what saves me. Having been raised in a VERY legalistic church, I was taught that if I went to the movies, or a school dance, or wore make-up, etc. I was going straight to hell. Telling someone else "if you don't do this or that you are not a Christian" is legalism. Only Christ saves, not what we do or don't do.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Telling someone else "if you don't do this or that you are not a Christian" is legalism.

Unless a scripture directly says that.;)

[Kathleen in VA]

No one, OT or NT, was ever justified by works. All are justified by faith. Rahab was justified by her faith that prompted her to act, which is what James meant when he said, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (James 2:17)

 

Hebrews 11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. (emphasis mine)

 

True faith always leads to right action.

[Heather in Neverland]

Unless a scripture directly says that.;)

 

What do you mean?

[Spy Car]

We are just looking at it from different angles. We are saved by faith alone. Nothing we did or can do contributes to our salvation so that we cannot boast. BUT because we are saved it expresses itself in our good works (not the other way around).

 

 

I understand the reasoning. But I also see the "real world" ramifications of examples such as those shown above.

 

And people seeing "works" demoted and then drawing the conclusion that they lack value.

 

That's what people hear when religious authorities clam believe that "externally righteous acts [don't] have any value on their own."

 

So people simply feel no need to do good deeds. Yet may have no problem boasting of their "faith."

 

Such a state of faith (to my eye) is dead.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

What do you mean?

Sorry, I had my boy in my lap playing with toys, so I couldn't type more. What I mean is that there are certain things that obviously make someone not a Christian. Certainly stating the same thing that is in the scriptures would not be legalism.

 

"Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man." 1 Corinthians 5:11-13

 

"As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition; knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning." Titus 3:10, 11; 1 Timothy 1:19, 20

 

What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10　nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10

 

"Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith."—1 Tim. 5:8.

[Erica in PA]

 

So people simply feel no need to do good deeds. Yet may have no problem boasting of their "faith."

 

 

 

The fact that people cannot earn salvation through good works is much different from saying that people don't need to do good works at all! The point you're making is much like James when he said "faith, without works, is dead." A saving faith *will* produce good works, but they do not save. So if you know of someone who says that they are saved by their faith, but their lives do not reflect good works, then you are observing what James described when he said that such is not a saving faith (James 2:14).

[Lovedtodeath]

 

The fact that people cannot earn salvation through good works is much different from saying that people don't need to do good works at all!

I have known many people to say just that. I thought that some of these posts were leaning in that direction as well.

 

[Erica in PA]

I have known many people to say just that. I thought that some of these posts were leaning in that direction as well.

 

Well, James is clear that saving faith will result in works, and that someone who claims to have faith but has no works, his faith is questionable. However, that still does not mean that a person's works *contribute* to his salvation. The works are a visible evidence that saving faith is present.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Well, James is clear that saving faith will result in works, and that someone who claims to have faith but has no works, his faith is questionable. However, that still does not mean that a person's works *contribute* to his salvation. The works are a visible evidence that saving faith is present.

Agreed. I appreciate the clarification.

 

[Sputterduck]

The fact that people cannot earn salvation through good works is much different from saying that people don't need to do good works at all! The point you're making is much like James when he said "faith, without works, is dead." A saving faith *will* produce good works, but they do not save. So if you know of someone who says that they are saved by their faith, but their lives do not reflect good works, then you are observing what James described when he said that such is not a saving faith (James 2:14).

 

Thank you! I do not see why people don't understand this! Works do not save, but works do come out of a saved person. In no way do works save, not even one tiny little smidge.

[Spy Car]

Well, James is clear that saving faith will result in works, and that someone who claims to have faith but has no works, his faith is questionable.

 

James doesn't say the faith of those who perform no works is "questionable", he said it is dead.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

True faith always leads to right action.

 

Let's examine the logic of this statement.

 

Let's accept the premise that "True faith always leads to right action."

 

Then let's look at a second premise of Christian thought, that being no human being has ever been is sinless*. That all people sometimes act wrongly, that their actions are not always the "right action."

 

The only logical conclusion to draw is no one "truly faithful", or else their actions would always be "right."

 

And if no one is truly faithful, and salvation comes through faith alone, then no one is (or has ever been) saved.

 

Is that what you are saying?

 

Better (I think) to acknowledge we are imperfect, but that we can make the world a better place if we try to right the wrongs we do, and further act in ways (small ways) that help heal the world.

 

Bill

 

 

*with the possible exception in the Catholic (and Orthodox?) traditions of Mary (mother of Jesus).

Edited October 14, 2009 by Spy Car
dumb typo

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Now Bill, you know very well that the premise is false. :-) David, Abraham, Peter, and many others, made plenty of mistakes, even grieviously sinned. However, they got back up, dusted themselves off, and turned their minds and hearts back to God, time and time again. Perhaps it would be better stated "True faith always perseveres."

 

Better (I think) to acknowledge we are imperfect, but that we can make the world a better place if we try to right the wrongs we do, and further act in ways (small ways) that help deal the world.

 

 

 

As a Christian, I do not disagree with this statement. If we are making this life more bearable and pleasant for others, we are serving God.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Virginia Dawn

[Kathleen in VA]

Let's examine the logic of this statement.

 

Let's accept the premise that "True faith always leads to right action."

 

Then let's look at a second premise of Christian thought, that being no human being has ever been is sinless*. That all people sometimes act wrongly, that their actions are not always the "right action."

 

The only logical conclusion to draw is no one "truly faithful", or else their actions would always be "right."

 

And if no one is truly faithful, and salvation comes through faith alone, then no one is (or has ever been) saved.

 

Is that what you are saying?

 

Better (I think) to acknowledge we are imperfect, but that we can make the world a better place if we try to right the wrongs we do, and further act in ways (small ways) that help deal the world.

 

Bill

 

 

*with the possible exception in the Catholic (and Orthodox?) traditions of Mary (mother of Jesus).

 

Nope. Not what I am saying. Obviously believers are not perfect. Only Christ was ever perfect. I have no problem acknowledging, as you say, that I am and everyone else for that matter is imperfect. Our righteousness has been imparted to us through Jesus Christ, the only human who ever lived a sinless life, who was also Divine God in the flesh. That's the amazing thing. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. I am saying that if a person has true faith he will be motivated by love for His Savior to obey His word which will necessarily lead to good works. If someone claims to have faith but does not live a life of obedience to God's word then his faith is dead.

 

Here's an article that might help:

 

http://www.angelfire.com/va/sovereigngrace/law.grace.right.html