Legalism has been mentioned several times recently. So I have a question. What do people define legalism as?
I grew up in a denomination that many might call legalistic. I left there and now attend a evangelial verse by verse teaching church. I say that since I understand what a lot of people call legalism yet I also, since having grown up in that view, may retain some of those thoughts.
I think it would be hard to find a church that people call legalistic who will say that salvation is via works. I think that most people call someone legalistic because they have views that there are rules to be followed.
So, lets take two wide views to help discuss the matter. The bible is very clear about things like, not being drunk, not having sex before marriage, etc. Do we not alll form rules that say "I can't do that". I can't go to bar looking to get drunk and "hook up".
The bible is also pretty clear that would should do somethings. Remember the Lords supper, live by faith, not foresake the assembly. So we make rules that say "I should do this or that"
What if your brother or sister were doing all those "don'ts" and was not doing the "do's"? Would you not approach them about it? Ah! But then aren't you legalistic for telling them they shouldn't do that or should do this?
So where is the line drawn? At what point is are you doing to many of the don'ts and not of the do's?
Why is it that if you tell another christian that the bible says they shouldn't do that, or that they should do this, that you are automatically defined as a legalist?
If a person is TRULY Spirit led then they don't need the Law because they will keep it without even knowing it.
If a person is not Spirit led then they need the Law to give them something to follow; this person is a legalist.
The problem happens when those who are Spirit led don't hear the Spirit to well or doubt they hear correctly, they use the Law as a crutch. There is nothing wrong with using the Law as a crutch, but a crutch is supposed to be a temporary aid, it will become a burden and drag you down if don't wean yourself off of it.
We are to be led by the Spirit, not by the Law.
If any disagree, then please explain why Jesus came and died?
The Law for the Spirit led are like the lines painted on the road, they help you when driving, but they don't give you directions to your destination.
I should probably clarify. I guess there is a difference between legalistic to "The Law" and having some parameters from the new testiment. Trust me, I don't want to get thrown into the same category as a recent poster here. lol.
So, no I am not talking about being bound to the Old Testament law. I think most people though think of legalisim if someone say to you "you should go to church each sunday" or "you can't have a beer with dinner", etc.
Great question. Obedience is an act of submission. Submission is an action that comes from love and understanding. I love God and I want to understand Him and know everything I can about His character because the more I know and understand Him the easier it is to trust Him. The more I trust Him the more humbly I obey Him
sub�mis�sive
�adjective
1.
inclined or ready to submit; unresistingly or humbly obedient: submissive servants.
2.
marked by or indicating submission: a submissive reply.
Legalism is not the same thing as obedience. It is an act of following the rules. There are people who want to know the rules and as long as they are following the rules and know their actions are right then they feel they are being obedient. They claim they are acting out of love and are submitting but they are actually acting out of fear and are subservient.
sub�ser�vi�ent
 �adjective
1.
serving or acting in a subordinate capacity; subordinate.
An act of submission is done in humility and usually privately without others observing it or able to determine it.
An act of subservience is on that is out in the open and can be judged or scored. That is why I call legalism score keeping. A legalistic person has an end or goal in mind and hopes that they can attain the goal by the extent of their subservience.
There is a saying we have that says one is "blowing their own horn". This came from the Pharisees who carried a little silver horn around their necks and whenever they gave to the poor they blew their horn and the poor would come running and everyone else would see them giving to the poor. They were legalistic and subservient, keeping the law to the letter but not being submissive and humble about it and keeping it in their hearts and worshiping privately.
Let me toss this scenario your way then. So lets say you know someone from church and then notice that they have stopped coming. And lets say each night on your way home from work, you notice your friends car at the local bar.
How do you approach him? You tell him you are worried about him, that he appears to be foresaking the assembly and appears to be at the bar alot which the bible says we shouldn't be getting drunk. Would approaching hiim with these "rules" be wrong? This is how I view alot of people veiwing legalism. As soon as you use some kind of metric like this, people think you are being legalistic.
And what about your other friend. This guy is really doing it right. He seems to love everyone, always volunteering at the orphanage, always at church, very positive, always encouraging others, trusting Jesus, and very humble. Don't we kind of use metrics to form our view of how well he is doing? or how well we are doing from things we read in the bible?
Yeah Shawn, good points and questions. I have had to face this myself and I found that my belief that the Word of God is sharper than any two edged sword then my duty is to approach a situation in which I am confronting someone with humility and compassion. Jesus looked out over His children and had compassion on them.
Our friend knows he may be sinning and for some reason he doesn't care. The answer to his problem is in lovingly finding the root of his problem and dealing compassionately with it. Those who use this approach are also humble and teachable.
The legalistic person would take a much more aggressive and condemning approach preaching fire and brimstone, judgment and damnation and only put fuel on the fire.
As for the "good guy", I believe some people would be keeping score on him but they would be the legalists. For all the rest of us know he may be their standard. I have a friend that is one of the most sacrificail, God fearing people I know. He travels all over the world doing a variety of mission trips. He has a group of benefactors that support everything he does and he has never had a regular job since graduating from high school. It is interesting because he never would have been very good at anything else. Anyway, I have heard people say that they wish they could be more like this guy. Some of them say it with a great deal of honor and respect for him but others say it as if they are trying to reach a standard. If we are a score keeper then we are legalistic and need to repent.
Great post, agreed with every word; where'd you park your band wagon so I can jump on!
Shawn,
From what I have seen in the forums, I have the utmost respect for you; I think you have a good heart and are very sincere. To answer the question about the friend at the bar:
You cannot judge this man any more than you can judge the one who appears to be doing good. Lets say the hypothetically the guy who is doing good is secretly using pronography and cheating on is wife. Let's say hypothetically the guy in the bar has been hanging out with a life long friend he is trying to lead to Jesus.
The point I am making is I cannot judge what is going on inside a man. Therefore I am rather unconventional in my approach and would do what most others would not. The Christianity thing is all about relationship, therefore I would go into the bar and visit with him at which point I would be relying heavily on the Holy Spirit to guide me in what to say and what not to say.
On a related side note about your example, (just spewing random thoughts) ....if Christians prayed for others as much as they talked about or judged others the Body of Christ would be incredibly stronger!
I certainly agree that all things should be done in love. I think though, which it sounded like you agree to an extent, is that the word needs to be used as the standard. I think a person can lovingly approach someone, without the fire and brimestone, and say, well would should participate with a congregation or we should avoid drunkenness, or what ever the issue is, and here is why, it is not me saying it, but here in this verse. I mean how else do we know what is right and wrong?
For me, these discussions really are that, intellectual discussions, a way to learn and grow. I quite enjoy sharing and hearing thoughts like this most of the time.
Good points as well. I agree, maybe the "bad" guy is not drinking in the bar, we do have to be careful about jumping to conclusions. It's just hard trying to come up with a scenario. So let me rephrase it. When would you, in a loving way built out of relationship, use scripture, to confront someone about a verified issue that they are doing or failing to do?
I mean what if someone said, "oh me and God are tight, I don't need to go to church" or "oh, I think the Holy Spirit is telling me it is ok to live with my significant other outside of marriage"? I think it is important to use scripture or else we are just coming to our own conclusions about what we can or can not do.
Oh, and very good point about praying for people more than talking about them.
I think legalism is trying to keep the "law" to earn your own righteousness. There's a difference between legalism and love though. If we keep the 10 commandments out of love, they are a manual on building a Christ-like character. They teach us how to love God and our "neighbor". It doesn't earn us anything.
