Legalism

[Monipenny]

(10-14-2011 11:40 AM)GraceThruFaith Wrote:  

(10-14-2011 12:58 AM)Monipenny Wrote:  To the fundamentalist, they are not legalists because they put a different spin on the meaning of the word.

Their definition; Legalism is salvation plus works. We are familiar with their stance on salvation by grace alone as if they are the only ones who adheres to this, "all others add works..." it's their battle cry. So they need educated on the real definition of legalism so they can begin to see what they've practiced all along.......adding works to their salvation.

Thank you for that. So you believe that IFB's actually do add works to salvation? Very interesting. Would your personal definition of legalism be the same (salvation plus works) or would there be more to it?

In the VERY same way they accuse Catholics of it. They practice legalism as if it is more important than what they say they believe. Action speaks louder than words, 'you say this (salvation by grace alone) but you do this (made up list of do's and don'ts) and the emphesis on these works are incredibly high.

My personal definition are those living by high unidealistic, nearly unattainable, rigid standards set by a leader and his affiliates wether these "works" has any bearing on salvation or not. legalism is works with or without salvation with emphises on the do as I command.

The Webster dictionary gives this. 1. strict, often too strict and literal, adherence to law. 2. in theology, the doctrine of salvation by good works.

So you see according to Webster it is both, but notice what is ranked first. Legalism is strict adherence to the law wether or not applicable to salvation.

Fundies only point out #2 of the definition and intentionally point their sheep away from knowing, understanding and realizing that they practice #1. I hope this has helped.

[MrsSarahN]

To me, actions speak louder than words. Fundies don't think they are legalistic because, like Monipenny said, they define legalism as "Christ plus works" (which is how I would define it as well) and they claim they don't believe that. However, they can say that til they are blue in the face, but the way they persecute, judge, and guilt those who don't follow what they believe are the right standards proves otherwise.

[Darren]

Fundys don't believe in works for justification, but they certainly do believe in works for sanctification, and both of those are wrong.

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Galatians 3:1-3

There are three aspects of salvation: justification, sanctification and glorification. Any attempt to boil any of these down to a list of rules is legalism, as Paul plainly states here.

[Away-From-The-Umbrella]

(10-21-2011 06:59 AM)Darren Wrote:  Fundys don't believe in works for justification, but they certainly do believe in works for sanctification, and both of those are wrong.

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Galatians 3:1-3

There are three aspects of salvation: justification, sanctification and glorification. Any attempt to boil any of these down to a list of rules is legalism, as Paul plainly states here.

I love that verse. Thank you for posting it!

[kaje]

Yes, and yes and yes to everyone who posted... Legalism is more than depending on works for salvation, it's also depending on works for sanctification, which we all know they do. In a sense, however, they also require them for salvation because, as someone state above, they will take a trivial action (say, going to a movie theater) and say, "well, no true Christian would do that, thus, by his fruits we know he's not a Christian." when in reality, the only time in the Bible that "fruits of salvation" are mentioned is during the listing of the fruits of the Spirit - none of which are "abstaining from movie theaters." Thus, by thinking like this, they are essentially, adding works to salvation. This same logic goes for Christians who social drink, listen to music deemed inappropriate by the current MOg, and wearing pants to church (these are a few from my personal life right now.)

I also heard that crap at BJU about Jesus never condemning the Pharisees strict rules. It blew my mind. NO WHERE in the Gospels does Jesus EVER have anything good to say about the Pharisees. Why? Because the wickedness of their hearts far out weighed any good their rules and self-made laws could have ever done for them. Leave it to BJU to try and justify all those ridiculous "higher standards."

[co_heir]

(10-25-2011 12:36 PM)kaje Wrote:  I also heard that crap at BJU about Jesus never condemning the Pharisees strict rules. It blew my mind. NO WHERE in the Gospels does Jesus EVER have anything good to say about the Pharisees. Why? Because the wickedness of their hearts far out weighed any good their rules and self-made laws could have ever done for them. Leave it to BJU to try and justify all those ridiculous "higher standards."

That teaching takes something untrue and hides it in the truth that Jesus didn't condemn the Pharisees when they taught the Law of Moses. What he did condemn is all the extra stuff they had piled on top of what God had given, and their attitude toward others. You know, the same stuff fundies do now.

[GraceThruFaith]

A big thing I am hearing alot more now in my particular Fundy circle is "standards of holiness". From a facebook friend:

Quote:If we truly understood the holiness of God, we wouldn't seek to justify all manner of worldliness in our lives, our homes & our churches.

A proper view of God's holiness will always lead us to higher standards of personal holiness.

True "liberty in Christ" never leads us to lower standards of holiness. It is freedom from bonds of sin, not freedom to live a carnal life.

What do standards have to do with holiness? Last time I checked, our only standard is Jesus.

[Away-From-The-Umbrella]

(10-25-2011 12:36 PM)kaje Wrote:  Yes, and yes and yes to everyone who posted... Legalism is more than depending on works for salvation, it's also depending on works for sanctification, which we all know they do. In a sense, however, they also require them for salvation because, as someone state above, they will take a trivial action (say, going to a movie theater) and say, "well, no true Christian would do that, thus, by his fruits we know he's not a Christian." when in reality, the only time in the Bible that "fruits of salvation" are mentioned is during the listing of the fruits of the Spirit - none of which are "abstaining from movie theaters." Thus, by thinking like this, they are essentially, adding works to salvation. This same logic goes for Christians who social drink, listen to music deemed inappropriate by the current MOg, and wearing pants to church (these are a few from my personal life right now.)

I also heard that crap at BJU about Jesus never condemning the Pharisees strict rules. It blew my mind. NO WHERE in the Gospels does Jesus EVER have anything good to say about the Pharisees. Why? Because the wickedness of their hearts far out weighed any good their rules and self-made laws could have ever done for them. Leave it to BJU to try and justify all those ridiculous "higher standards."

(10-25-2011 05:07 PM)co_heir Wrote:  

(10-25-2011 12:36 PM)kaje Wrote:  I also heard that crap at BJU about Jesus never condemning the Pharisees strict rules. It blew my mind. NO WHERE in the Gospels does Jesus EVER have anything good to say about the Pharisees. Why? Because the wickedness of their hearts far out weighed any good their rules and self-made laws could have ever done for them. Leave it to BJU to try and justify all those ridiculous "higher standards."

That teaching takes something untrue and hides it in the truth that Jesus didn't condemn the Pharisees when they taught the Law of Moses. What he did condemn is all the extra stuff they had piled on top of what God had given, and their attitude toward others. You know, the same stuff fundies do now.

Matthew 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