Author Topic: Defining Legalism  (Read 2213 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4541
  • Manna: 98
  • Gender: Male
Defining Legalism
« on: Sat Apr 09, 2022 - 19:24:59 »
REFORMATION RUMBLINGS
BUFF SCOTT, JR.
__________________
 
Defining Legalism

    To me, legalism is an attempt to merit our way to heaven. I was brought up in that kind of religious culture and it continues to burden me even today with the thought, “To reach God’s gloryland, I must do this and not do that.” And if I fail to reach a sort of self-perfection in my obedience, guilt is the end product.

    I persisted in this most unpopular course a big part of my early Christian adolescence. The addiction has not been easy to overcome, and I often have to stop in my tracks and tell myself, “God knows your weaknesses and your limitations and your attempts to better serve Him, so calm down and allow His grace to fill in the gaps.”

    I like the way Charles Swindoll explains legalism. “Legalism,” he says, “requires that we all be alike, unified in convictions and uniform in appearance, to which I say, ‘Let me out!’ Grace, on the other hand, finds pleasure in differences, encourages individuality, smiles on variety, and leaves plenty of room for disagreement.”Grace Awakening, p. 156.

    Our Lord said it best. “So also you, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants, we have only done what was our duty’ ” [Luke 17:10].

    Regardless of our efforts to serve and obey Him flawlessly, which is impossible, we are still fallen creatures—unworthy servants—and in desperate need of His grace. We are redeemed sinners! Therefore, we seek His compassion, His mercy, and His redemptive favor. For without being granted these divine virtues, the path to eternal life will be extremely difficult to negotiate.
« Last Edit: Sat Apr 09, 2022 - 19:28:21 by Reformer »

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9622
  • Manna: 308
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #1 on: Sat Apr 09, 2022 - 22:41:12 »
When a person finds it most difficult to give all of their heart, mind, and soul to God, legalism often fills the void, and gives the believer a sense of righteousness by God.

Offline johntwayne

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5537
  • Manna: 147
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #2 on: Sun Apr 10, 2022 - 00:40:01 »
I just don't see this in the church. Grace is the basis of salvation. A healthy respect for God's authority can be mistaken for legalism.

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9622
  • Manna: 308
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #3 on: Sun Apr 10, 2022 - 01:04:26 »

I just don't see this in the church. Grace is the basis of salvation. A healthy respect for God's authority can be mistaken for legalism.

Nah, you can tell the difference, the heart of the legalist is hard.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #3 on: Sun Apr 10, 2022 - 01:04:26 »

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14851
  • Manna: 372
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #4 on: Sun Apr 10, 2022 - 17:58:19 »
    To me, legalism is an attempt to merit our way to heaven. I was brought up in that kind of religious culture and it continues to burden me even today with the thought, “To reach God’s gloryland, I must do this and not do that.” And if I fail to reach a sort of self-perfection in my obedience, guilt is the end product.

    I persisted in this most unpopular course a big part of my early Christian adolescence. The addiction has not been easy to overcome, and I often have to stop in my tracks and tell myself, “God knows your weaknesses and your limitations and your attempts to better serve Him, so calm down and allow His grace to fill in the gaps.”

    I like the way Charles Swindoll explains legalism. “Legalism,” he says, “requires that we all be alike, unified in convictions and uniform in appearance, to which I say, ‘Let me out!’ Grace, on the other hand, finds pleasure in differences, encourages individuality, smiles on variety, and leaves plenty of room for disagreement.”Grace Awakening, p. 156.

    Our Lord said it best. “So also you, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants, we have only done what was our duty’ ” [Luke 17:10].

    Regardless of our efforts to serve and obey Him flawlessly, which is impossible, we are still fallen creatures—unworthy servants—and in desperate need of His grace. We are redeemed sinners! Therefore, we seek His compassion, His mercy, and His redemptive favor. For without being granted these divine virtues, the path to eternal life will be extremely difficult to negotiate.
We're supposed to apply the law to ourselves.  To do so, is to receive instruction and learn righteousness.

Legalism happens when people apply the law to others around them...

And [Jesus] said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers!

I'm sure we've all met that person at one time or another.  For me it was an aunt.  Raised a PK and lived wildly in her youth.  She came back to the church in middle age... and promptly became the biggest busybody in the church, digging into everyone's business and judging them with a standard she never applied to her own words and actions.

Jarrod

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #4 on: Sun Apr 10, 2022 - 17:58:19 »

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4541
  • Manna: 98
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #5 on: Sun Apr 10, 2022 - 19:13:52 »
Jarrod:

    I like the way Paul expresses it, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" [Eph. 2:8-9].

Thanks for your input,

Buff
« Last Edit: Sun Apr 10, 2022 - 19:17:04 by Reformer »

Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11007
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #6 on: Mon Apr 11, 2022 - 04:07:51 »
Quote
Defining Legalism
It's best for me to describe the person who is a legalist in their religious acts of serving God~in order to see what legalism consists of.

A diehard legalist is one who always judges men by "sight" and not by inward acts of faith, which very well and often does excel them!

When a diehard legalist comes in contact with confessed believers they immediately begin to judge them based on their outward appearances~what kind of car they drive, the clothes they wear, the length of hair on both male and females, what they may eat, or do not eat, drink or do not drink; the list is long and unmerciful, a list they themselves most likely do not heed completely to.
Quote
Colossians 2:16-18~"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,"
Folks who are legalist, have their own standard they judge others by to see if they are the TYPE OF BELIEVERS THEY ARE.

True legalists have created a god in their own heart of what they think God should be and do if THEY WERE GOD. They put emphasis on small things, unimportant matters, things folks can do WITHOUT RULING THEIR HEARTS where true faith is truly seen, which is between God and the person alone. A legalist thinks he must prove his faith by outward acts of selfwill where others can see and praise them for their seemly godly works. A true child of faith only seeks to please God who sees in secret and always rewards openly.

We could go on, but enough to point out what a true legalist person is.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4541
  • Manna: 98
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #7 on: Mon Apr 11, 2022 - 12:28:34 »
RB:

    In your Reply above, #6, you have described yourself precisely. Paul suggests we examine ourselves. Please take a step in that direction.

Buff

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Journalist!, SuperFree, Senator of GCM, Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable. The Man, The Myth, The Legend
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13821
  • Manna: 418
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #8 on: Mon Apr 11, 2022 - 13:04:01 »
RB:

    In your Reply above, #6, you have described yourself precisely. Paul suggests we examine ourselves. Please take a step in that direction.

Buff

I didn't see anything in RB's post that pointed at anyone in particular, and you took the opportunity to slam RB.   ::frown::

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #8 on: Mon Apr 11, 2022 - 13:04:01 »

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14851
  • Manna: 372
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #9 on: Mon Apr 11, 2022 - 14:14:34 »
I didn't see anything in RB's post that pointed at anyone in particular, and you took the opportunity to slam RB.   ::frown::
You've been criticizing him for not directly engaging.  Isn't this what you wanted?

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Journalist!, SuperFree, Senator of GCM, Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable. The Man, The Myth, The Legend
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13821
  • Manna: 418
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #10 on: Mon Apr 11, 2022 - 14:38:42 »
You've been criticizing him for not directly engaging.  Isn't this what you wanted?

Jarrod,

Buff already engages by calling names.  So no, I would him to fight his own battles of disagreement by making a cogent argument instead of sniping with names and giving attaboys. 

Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11007
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #11 on: Mon Apr 11, 2022 - 15:07:36 »
RB:

    In your Reply above, #6, you have described yourself precisely. Paul suggests we examine ourselves. Please take a step in that direction.

Buff
I described what I have witnessed over my many years of being a Christian. If the truth was fully known as God sees the hearts of all men (pride hides it from our own hearts) we ALL have a pharisaical spirit, some more, some less, but all some~its in our old man, which God commands us to put off.   

Now, concerning your judgmental spirit of judging me, whom you have never seen or truly never once interact with~you should repent of your proud spirit of judging another person simply because you dislike that person for exposing you for whom you are.

You took a cheap and coward jab at me because you most likely are not man enough to do it to my face. Of course, I would not do anything to you other than show you that only a wicked spirit do such things~and I would be man enough to confront you if you were close enough to do so.

Btw, I would not go to the moderator over such things, I would deal with you as a man should.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4541
  • Manna: 98
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #12 on: Tue Apr 12, 2022 - 00:09:40 »
RB:

    I sincerely believe you described yourself more than anyone else on Grace Christian format. I have read you enough to be able to somewhat analyze your doctrinal personality.

    I don't need to see and meet you in person. Your "person" is spread all over this format. No offence meant. You are free to call me additional names, if you wish. I'll still be around.

Buff

Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11007
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #13 on: Tue Apr 12, 2022 - 04:28:59 »
RB:

    I sincerely believe you described yourself more than anyone else on Grace Christian format. I have read you enough to be able to somewhat analyze your doctrinal personality.

Buff
Sir, "IF" you truly knew the scriptures as you desire others to believe you do, then you should know that every point I mentioned above is taken from scriptures as the Holy Spirit describes a legalist for us. Are you willing to say that the Holy Ghost is describing Himself, for I almost took word for word from the scriptures. Do you need help locating those scriptures?

The only reason I have seen legalism in action many times over is because I was judging legalism by God's definition/testimony who are guilty of this God-dishonoring sin.

Your judgment is based on how folks praise you or do not praise you, this I have noticed in the few short years of reading your post.
Quote from:  Reformer on: Today at 00:09:40
I don't need to see and meet you in person. Your "person" is spread all over this format. No offence meant. You are free to call me additional names, if you wish. I'll still be around.
Well, if you truly have read my post with an open heart, then you would see that I allow saints much liberty in what they eat, drink, wear, places they go, and even the people they may be friends with~were they lived, how they spend their money, etc., etc.

Sir, I think your problem is you truly do not know how to define "legalism" according to God's testimony who alone has the wisdom and right to call a person a legalist.

Now, if you think I'm one then take the scriptures and show me~I'm very convinced you are unable to do so, but you have both a duty and right to do so.

Do not just take cheap shots like a "nancy boy" would, convincing himself that he has just put another legalist in his place~be a man, and conduct yourself as one, if possible
« Last Edit: Tue Apr 12, 2022 - 09:52:51 by RB »

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4541
  • Manna: 98
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #14 on: Tue Apr 12, 2022 - 12:44:51 »
RB:

    "Sir, 'IF' you truly knew the scriptures as you desire others to believe you do, then you should know that every point I mentioned above is taken from scriptures as the Holy Spirit describes a legalist for us."

    None of us here object to your quoting scripture. Our problem with you is your conception of what those scriptures teach. And that has been pointed out to you many times, but to no avail. That, too, is a form of legalism.

Have a good day,

Buff

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17574
  • Manna: 201
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #15 on: Tue Apr 12, 2022 - 14:04:42 »
To me legalism is being more concerned with the rules and laws than the One who gave those rules and laws. 
It is entirely non-relational.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4541
  • Manna: 98
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #16 on: Tue Apr 12, 2022 - 14:19:21 »
DaveW:

That is indeed one of the symptoms of legalism!

Thanks,

Buff

Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11007
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #17 on: Wed Apr 13, 2022 - 03:18:16 »
None of us here object to your quoting scripture. Our problem with you is your conception of what those scriptures teach. And that has been pointed out to you many times, but to no avail. That, too, is a form of legalism.
So, is the king speaking for all others?
Quote from: Reformer on: Yesterday at 12:44:51
Our problem with you is your conception of what those scriptures teach.  That, too, is a form of legalism..
So, it's finally is surfacing what you so strongly dislike about me~my unwavering position on grace over your work gospel~by calling it a legalist system, or a form of legalism, not so much by its do's and do not's, but the core of the teaching on God's sovereignty versus man's free will of having some goodness attached to it that enables him to please God in his natural state by birth apart from God's Spirit first quickening the sinner.
Quote from: Reformer on: Yesterday at 12:44:51
None of us here object to your quoting scripture. Our problem with you is your conception of what those scriptures teach. And that has been pointed out to you many times, but to no avail. That, too, is a form of legalism.
Then Jesus according to your words would have been a legalist in his days. His teaching on just about every subject was contrary to the teachings of the Pharisees the straightest sect of the Jews' religion. From God's sovereignty to eating and drinking, praying, divorce and remarrying, all manner of religious acts, etc., etc....... the list is long.

Would you find fault with Jesus for praying only for the elect and not for the world?
Quote from: John
John 17:9~"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."
I'm sure you would have~and most likely would had called him that dirty word... A Calvinist  elitist.

Be as it may, God will be the final judge and his judgment will be in righteousness. Therefore I will judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
« Last Edit: Thu Apr 14, 2022 - 03:24:08 by RB »

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4541
  • Manna: 98
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #18 on: Wed Apr 13, 2022 - 21:03:35 »
RB:

    As I clearly noted, our problem with your theology on Calvinism is you conception of the scriptures you quote. We do not disagree with the divine oracles of God, the scriptures, but your CONCEPTION of them. I think that is clear enough.

Buff

Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11007
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #19 on: Thu Apr 14, 2022 - 03:21:03 »
RB:

    As I clearly noted, our problem with your theology on Calvinism is you conception of the scriptures you quote. We do not disagree with the divine oracles of God, the scriptures, but your CONCEPTION of them. I think that is clear enough.

Buff
Well if that be so, then why do you not enter into a true dialogue concerning the subject of the doctrine of election of grace. You can say what you will, but, if the truth is truly known, you refuse to enter into a true discussion of such chapters as Romans nine and eleven, etc.

You keep using the word "our, we" etc. let others speak for themselves and you speak for Mr. Buff. Of course, I know why........ you need others to fight for you while you put on your skirt and cheer~ that's what effeminate preachers do best. The front line of the battles they have too much fear of that type of fighting and make all kinds of excuses as to why they refuse to enter the front line of the battle.
Quote from: Reformer on: Yesterday at 21:03:35
We do not disagree with the divine oracles of God, the scriptures
Your words say one thing, while your teachings say otherwise~You sound just like a true-blooded Pharisees speaking which the Lord Jesus warned his disciples of!
Quote from: JESUS CHRIST
Luke 12:1~In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
There are several warnings about people just like you~who profess to believe Moses and the prophets and even garnished their tombs~yet cast their very words behind them and even killed them in favor of their own man-made teachings. Matthew 23 is full of strong condemnations of men who profess to believe (like yours words: "We do not disagree with the divine oracles of God, the scriptures") yet rejected the very teachings they were wearing around their necks to impress others as they walk around in their self-righteous robes.

Online 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13970
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #20 on: Thu Apr 14, 2022 - 07:08:22 »
Would you find fault with Jesus for praying only for the elect and not for the world?
RB, this question from you is representative of what Reformer is talking about. I agree with him on this point.  I do not reject the word of God as you so often accuse.  I reject your interpretation of so much of the word of God, particularly where it pertains to soteriology. The passage in Luke 17:6-19 is not Jesus' prayer for the elect.  It is a prayer for his disciples. But you have inserted your [false] notion of "the elect" into verse 19.  It is not there.

Looking at the entire chapter 17, verses 1-5 is Jesus' prayer for himself; verses 6-19 is His prayer for his disciples; verses 20-26 is His prayer for those "who will believe on me through their word", Those "who will believe on me" are the saints, the church. "Their word" is the word of the disciples. The church is indeed made up of the elect; but I disagree strongly with your definition of the elect.

Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11007
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #21 on: Thu Apr 14, 2022 - 14:46:31 »
RB, this question from you is representative of what Reformer is talking about. I agree with him on this point.
I expect you do agree with all with whom you share the same doctrine concerning, soteriology. You both have a very strong dislike of salvation by grace without works on the part of the sinner. No new revelation 4WD.
Quote
I do not reject the word of God as you so often accuse.
4WD, concerning this doctrine you do. Salvation from sin and condemnation is of grace minus works by the sinner who is at enmity against God.

You both reject total depravity, and yes I mean total depravity of the human flesh. Did you not see Rella's post early? http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/news-from-around-the-world/well-it-wasn't-a-cow-so-must-be-ok-sheeesh/ If that does not speak loud and clear on total human depravity of our flesh, I do not know what more could be added to that sicken abomination! If I did not read that, I probably would not believe that flesh would even think of something so wicked and SO AGAINST NATURE.
Quote from: 4WD  on: Today at 07:08:22
The passage in Luke 17:6-19 is not Jesus' prayer for the elect.  It is a prayer for his disciples. But you have inserted your [false] notion of "the elect" into verse 19.  It is not there.

Looking at the entire chapter 17, verses 1-5 is Jesus' prayer for himself; verses 6-19 is His prayer for his disciples; verses 20-26 is His prayer for those "who will believe on me through their word", Those "who will believe on me" are the saints, the church. "Their word" is the word of the disciples. The church is indeed made up of the elect; but I disagree strongly with your definition of the elect.
I could spend much time in John 17 proving just how wrong you are, but, I cannot at this moment, maybe I'll consider this in the morning after I post again on Justification.

I'll do it out of love, not because I do not love you, for I do~it might not seem like I do, since we go at it very hard toward each other, but I see in you a different spirit than in some others in spite of our differences.
« Last Edit: Fri Apr 15, 2022 - 03:23:31 by RB »

Online 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13970
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #22 on: Thu Apr 14, 2022 - 16:35:40 »
I expect you do agree with all with whom you share the same doctrine concerning, soteriology. You both have a very strong dislike of salvation by grace without works on the part of the sinner. No new revelation 4WD.
But RB, I believe very strongly in salvation by grace through faith without works., What we have here, one more time, is the erroneous RB definition of words not in alignment with scripture.
Quote from: RB
You both reject total depravity, and yes I mean total depravity of the human flesh.
I do not reject depravity, but I do reject the concept of total depravity.  And perhaps even more I reject the concept of what you believe to be the source of total depravity, namely, God Himself.
Quote from: TB
Did you not see Rella's post easier? http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/news-from-around-the-world/well-it-wasn't-a-cow-so-must-be-ok-sheeesh/
Yes, I saw it.  And thoroughly evil as it was, it does not constitute total depravity, though it certainly does illustrate the depravity of those involved.
Quote from: RB
I could spend much time in John 17 proving just how wrong you are, but, I cannot at this moment, maybe I'll consider this in the morning after I post again on Justification.
Go for it. I can take whatever you might have. But I would point out to you that John 17:20 pretty much defeats what I might guess you are going to say.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4541
  • Manna: 98
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #23 on: Thu Apr 14, 2022 - 22:05:27 »
RB:

    "Well if that be so, then why do you not enter into a true dialogue concerning the subject of the doctrine of election of grace. You can say what you will, but, if the truth is truly known, you refuse to enter into a true discussion of such chapters as Romans nine and eleven, etc."

    On many occasions I have entered into a detailed discussion with you on a diversity of Calvinistic issues, but to no avail. Neither one of us has been converted one fraction of an inch.

    You repeat over and over your Calvinistic viewpoints. We seem to doing nothing tangible except "marching around the mulberry bush." I really have no more time to confront you in detail or respond to your confrontations. We are getting nowhere.

Sleep well,

Buff

Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11007
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #24 on: Fri Apr 15, 2022 - 03:20:26 »
On many occasions I have entered into a detailed discussion with you on a diversity of Calvinistic issues, but to no avail.
Then you obviously do not know the meaning of many and detailed, or you are being totally dishonest with yourself, for you certainly are not deceiving me with this statement, and probably not too many others.
Quote
Sleep well,  Buff
Bluff, I DO, for I refuse to eat the bread of sorrow over men who hate and reject God's sovereignty in the salvation of men who are at enmity against Him.
Quote
Psalm 127:2~"It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep."
I do and say all that is required of me from God as faithfully as I can, in all areas of my life (far from perfect I know), and then leave all results at His holy feet. It is vain to do otherwise and a waste of our precious time~not to mention it is not good for our health not to follow this holy advice. I'm sure David knew this in his dealing with his rebellious son Absalom, the third son of king David.
« Last Edit: Fri Apr 15, 2022 - 03:33:19 by RB »

Offline GB

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Manna: 10
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #25 on: Fri Apr 15, 2022 - 10:01:59 »
REFORMATION RUMBLINGS
BUFF SCOTT, JR.
__________________
 
Defining Legalism

    To me, legalism is an attempt to merit our way to heaven.

I love this topic as it is especially close to my heart, and totally believe it should be explored given how much this word Legalism, found nowhere in the Bible, is used by this world's religions. I apologize for the length in advance, I tried to keep it short, but the Scriptures have a lot to say about this popular religious philosophy.

The premise of this doctrine you are promoting seems to be based on some notion that the Pharisees were trying to earn salvation by obeying God. But according to Jesus, who certainly should be the authority in my view, the Pharisees were not obeying God. And that was the problem. They "omitted" important parts of God's instructions that Jesus said they should have done, and not leave the other undone. They taught for doctrines the commandments of men, not God. They didn't believe Moses, and neither did their fathers who received God's Law by the disposition of angels and didn't keep it.

Nevertheless, I have heard since my youth from the religions of this world I was born into, that the Pharisees were trying to "merit their way" into the Kingdom by following "God's Law". It seems to me the bible doesn't teach this, so as a brother, I feel it is edifying to express my understanding of Scriptures on this topic.

Now Zacharias was an obedient Faithful servant of God. It is written of him; Luke 1:5 "There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

And again, about Abraham;

Gen. 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Wasn't God's relationship with Abraham and Zacharias based on how they humbled themselves in obedience to God?

Didn't Abraham, Zacharias and even Jesus obey God, because they wanted to please Him?

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for (Because) I do always those things that please him.

Gen. 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

How are these men not obeying for the express purpose of securing Favor of God in order to receive the Promises? If my dad tells me to clean my room, and if I do, he will take me fishing. Am I wrong as a child for cleaning my room, so that dad with fulfill his promise to me? And if I remain faithful, shall I not learn that cleaning my room is the right thing to do, and simply my duty. Therefore, as I grow in the knowledge of my dad, I will learn "why" he made me clean my room and will no longer expect a reward, but will become thankful that dad went out of his way to teach me a universal truth. Pick up after yourself.

Are we not told to come to Jesus as little children? Isn't that because kids can be taught?



 
Quote
I was brought up in that kind of religious culture and it continues to burden me even today with the thought, “To reach God’s gloryland, I must do this and not do that.”

I was also raised under the same religious influence. But like the Pharisees religion, many of the "do this or don't do that" was founded on ancient religious tradition, having nothing to do with the actual instructions of God. The Pharisees had created religious traditions centered around business and politics. They created large man made "shrines of Worship", they had their preachers  who always sat in the chief seats of the house. They created their own images of God, and their own High Days, they engaged basically in the selling atonement. They created unholy alliances with the Godless Governments around them for the purpose of retaining their wealth and Stature.

It is the same today, in my view. Religions are mostly for profit businesses who come in Christ's name, centered around man made "shrines of worship", with self proclaimed ministers of righteousness, who gather the people together in one place to promote their specific list of "do's and don'ts". They have created their own god in the likeness of some very handsome long haired man. They have created their own high days in worship of this god. And they have created some of the wealthiest corporations this world has even seen.

Are all these "do's and don'ts" not their version of trying to "merit their way into heaven"?

 Perhaps if the Pharisees had followed the examples of Abraham, and Zacharias, and Jesus, who all "Denied" themselves and did those things which were "Pleasing in God's eyes" and not the worlds, they wouldn't have transgressed God's Commandments by their own religious traditions. Maybe they should have place their Faith in the Christ of the Bible, and followed His instruction as to what "do's and don'ts" we should be concerned with.


Matt. 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Luke 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.


 
Quote
And if I fail to reach a sort of self-perfection in my obedience, guilt is the end product. 

Guilt
noun; 1 the fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or penal law;  2 a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc., whether real or imagined.

Isn't "Guilt" the single most important driver of true repentance?

2 Cor. 7:9 Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.

10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

I'm not sorry I have Guilt, rather, I am Blessed for having Guilt. I helps me "Strive against sin", or as Jesus instructs, "Go and Sin no more". Yes, guilt is uncomfortable, it brings remorse and sorrow. But it also motivates a man to be better. A Contrite heart is what God wants.

Ps. 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.


contrite.
ADJECTIVE

feeling or expressing remorse or penitence; affected by guilt:

"a broken and a contrite heart" synonyms: remorseful · repentant · penitent · regretful · full of regret · sorry · apologetic · self-reproachful · rueful · sheepish · hangdog · ashamed · chastened · shamefaced · conscience-stricken · guilt-ridden · in sackcloth and ashes · compunctious

Guilt, or as God Defines it, contrite heart, is one of God's Tools to refine me into a better man in His eyes, a better husband in HIS Eyes, a better father in His Eyes, a better Brother in His Eyes.

One reason why I stay away from the religions of this world, is their constant progression of removing Guilt in order to increase membership to their religious business. They do this, in my view, by eliminating or abolishing GOD's "do's and don'ts".

Promoting the negative connotation for the word "Legalism" itself, which seems to be defined as obeying God in order to secure favor With him, is one way this is accomplished, in my view.


Quote
    I persisted in this most unpopular course a big part of my early Christian adolescence. The addiction has not been easy to overcome, and I often have to stop in my tracks and tell myself, “God knows your weaknesses and your limitations and your attempts to better serve Him, so calm down and allow His grace to fill in the gaps.”

    I like the way Charles Swindoll explains legalism. “Legalism,” he says, “requires that we all be alike, unified in convictions and uniform in appearance, to which I say, ‘Let me out!’ Grace, on the other hand, finds pleasure in differences, encourages individuality, smiles on variety, and leaves plenty of room for disagreement.”Grace Awakening, p. 156. 

Yes, imagine a world in which "EVERYONE" followed God's do's and don'ts. No more people killing one another. No more people hating one another. No more religious fraudsters swindling widows out of their income to provide themselves  a 5th home in Jamaica. Imagine the whole world  honoring God's Sabbaths. The whole world "Striving against sin".

But then, what would happen to all the religious businesses, and the wealth and power they have created for themselves? What about all the billions of dollars this world spends and makes on all the man religious made high days? Therefore, until Jesus comes back, only a "FEW" will walk the path HE walked, at least according to the Scriptures.

God has pleaded with folks for a long time to listen and obey Him Buff.

Jer. 6:13 For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. 14 They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. 15 Were they ashamed (Guilty) when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.

16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

Why do they refuse??? Swindoll's definition of Grace says it best, in my view. "Grace, on the other hand, finds pleasure in differences, encourages individuality, smiles on variety, and leaves plenty of room for disagreement".

Jer. 18:12 And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart.

Ps. 81:11 But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me. 12 So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels. 13 Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!

Eph. 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.



Quote
    Our Lord said it best. “So also you, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants, we have only done what was our duty’ ” [Luke 17:10].

Yes, Jesus truly understood the whole duty of man, as the Scriptures teach.

Ecc. 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.


Quote
Regardless of our efforts to serve and obey Him flawlessly, which is impossible, we are still fallen creatures—unworthy servants—and in desperate need of His grace. We are redeemed sinners! Therefore, we seek His compassion, His mercy, and His redemptive favor.

Listening and following the religious philosophies of this world, YES, obedience and honor to God is impossible, just as it was for Eve, when she gave place to the "other voice" in the garden, who also quoted some of God's Word. "Hath God not said"?. But if we follow the instructions of the Jesus of the bible, and "Do the work's of Abraham", and Love His Father with all our hearts and with all our minds, and "Go and sin no more", we become a "NEW MAN" which has "Put on Christ" and "Put on the Armor of God". As Paul says.

Phip. 3:11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

And again;

2 Tim. 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (Do's and don'ts)


Quote
For without being granted these divine virtues, the path to eternal life will be extremely difficult to negotiate.

I believe God's instructions are also divine virtues. Humility towards the God and Father of the Lord's Christ, is a divine virtue. God's definition of Holy, Clean and Righteousness, are all "Divine Virtues" Buff. All honored by Abel, Noah, Abraham, Caleb, Gideon, Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, and all the examples of Faithful men, written specifically for our admonition. And, all honored by Jesus Himself who instructed His people to "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect".

I would caution giving to much weight to this world's definition of Legalism.





Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9622
  • Manna: 308
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #26 on: Fri Apr 15, 2022 - 11:06:57 »
@GB, I think you missed the point. Legalism isn't so much about obeying the commandments, especially if one keeps the two greatest commandments near and dear to their heart. It's about using the law to climb your way into heaven, which we know, is short a few rungs.

Offline GB

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Manna: 10
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #27 on: Fri Apr 15, 2022 - 12:19:18 »
@GB, I think you missed the point. Legalism isn't so much about obeying the commandments, especially if one keeps the two greatest commandments near and dear to their heart. It's about using the law to climb your way into heaven, which we know, is short a few rungs.

I love the reply Allen. Honest, and heart felt. But I would ask a question or two.

How can I use God's Law to climb my way into heaven? Where did Jesus Warn about such a thing?

And how does a person Love God with all their heart and soul? By "omitting" the Laws of God that they might not like or agree with? Or omitting the instructions of God that have been rejected by a certain religion of the world we were born into?

I think I know the origins of this doctrine of "Legalism", and I would appreciate your feed back as it is central to much of this world's religious philosophies.

Gal. 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

What does it mean to be "Justified"? I think it means being forgiven, having their sins removed, making them sinless, or Righteous. I would be interested in your understanding regarding the meaning of "Justified" here.

 Before the New High Priest came, how was a man's sin forgiven? In other words, what "law" of Justification were the Pharisees promoting? We know it had to be a LAW of God. We know Moses is the one who gave God's LAWs to His People. So if we are to ask Moses, "In the Law God gave us, when a man sinned, what did Moses Command them to do?

Did Moses say "If a man sins, he shall Love his neighbor as himself, and his sins are forgiven? Or did he say; "If a man sins, he shall Keep the Sabbath Holy, and his sins are forgiven?"

Well I have looked pretty close at the Laws of God given to Moses, I find nothing to support this. But I did find a Law that Moses gave Specifically for a man that sins.

Lev. 4:27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;

28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.

29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

30 And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.

31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him. Which would render this person righteous, and without sin.

So it seems to me that the Pharisees were trying to promote this LAW, so the New Converts would have to come to them, and bring their sin offering to them, for Justification, and not bring repentance to the Christ, as the Law and Prophets Prophesied.

Which would render the Prophesied Priest "After the Order of Melchizedek" irrelevant, along with His Sacrifice as the Lamb of God. Thus making His sacrifice of none effect.

This same theme runs through the Bible.

Phil. 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, (Purchasing forgiveness by bringing to the Levite Priest a goat, and killing it) but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Rom. 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, (Bringing a Goat to the Levite Priest) hath not attained to the law of righteousness. (They still transgressed God's commandments by their religious traditions)

Gal. 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law,(Bringing a goat to the Levite Priest) then Christ is dead in vain.

Rom. 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Not the "works of the LAW" of Forgiveness posted above)

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? (Bringing a goat to the Levite Priest?) Nay: but by the law of faith.

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Bringing a goat to the Levite Priest)

I think we, just like Abraham and Jesus, have all been born into a world with its religions which influence us, as Buff also mentioned.

This is why I know that the "children of the Devil", the Hypocrites, as Jesus called them, were not trying to earn salvation by being obedient to God. Rather they were "Partial in the Law", using and twisting the Levitical Priesthood to maintain their own wealth and power, while at the same time, "Teaching for doctrines the commandments of men", and "omitting" the weightier matters of the Law..

Sorry so long winded, but I would appreciate hearing your take, on this understanding of scriptures.







Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9622
  • Manna: 308
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #28 on: Fri Apr 15, 2022 - 13:45:28 »
I love the reply Allen. Honest, and heart felt. But I would ask a question or two.

How can I use God's Law to climb my way into heaven? Where did Jesus Warn about such a thing?
Plain and simply, the law was never sufficient since no one can live their life free of sin, that was Jesus purpose here on earth. Jesus spoke regarding the the cleanliness of the cup, and the filth within it, that alone should give you an indication of how the legalist has a tarnished view of God's desires.
Quote
And how does a person Love God with all their heart and soul? By "omitting" the Laws of God that they might not like or agree with? Or omitting the instructions of God that have been rejected by
Not at all, Jesus was referring to the broader spectrum, perhaps the Sermon on the Mount would be helpful in this instance. Jesus clarified the law and what it meant to truly love God, or truly love the law.

Online 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13970
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #29 on: Fri Apr 15, 2022 - 14:45:33 »
There is a fundamental problem with the posts of both GB and RB.  Both have a really messed up definitions and understandings of "works of law" They are different; but both are screwed up to the point that it brings confusion to their understanding of the topic at hand. GB's understanding is probably the bigger problem because he confuses works of law with the ritual acts of atonement performed by the Levite priests for the failure of the peoples to properly conduct "works of law". In that confusion, in just about everything in the whole salvation thing, he is wrong. And that includes the concept of legalism.  He can post page after page on legalism; but it will still be wrong.
« Last Edit: Fri Apr 15, 2022 - 14:48:38 by 4WD »

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9622
  • Manna: 308
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #30 on: Fri Apr 15, 2022 - 17:06:48 »
There is a fundamental problem with the posts of both GB and RB.  Both have a really messed up definitions and understandings of "works of law" They are different; but both are screwed up to the point that it brings confusion to their understanding of the topic at hand. GB's understanding is probably the bigger problem because he confuses works of law with the ritual acts of atonement performed by the Levite priests for the failure of the peoples to properly conduct "works of law". In that confusion, in just about everything in the whole salvation thing, he is wrong. And that includes the concept of legalism.  He can post page after page on legalism; but it will still be wrong.


it's almost like he can't distinguish the law from legalism.  ::crackup::

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4541
  • Manna: 98
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #31 on: Fri Apr 15, 2022 - 18:07:43 »
GB:

    I hardly know where to start in responding to your diverse views on obeying commands, grace, and faith. But I’ll give it a shot.

    Paul told the Galatian believers, “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose” [Gal. 2:21]. “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified [counted righteous] by the law” [5:4].

    For the believer, the only way to be declared righteous—or right—is by grace through faith. This is not to say that believers are not expected to adhere to law, whether moral law, political law, social law, or God’s law. Indeed, humankind and law are an integral part of the terrestrial life. Law is a rule of action, rules that govern our behavior.

    Yet in spite of all the laws that surround us—moral, political, divine—not one of us will be saved because we observed them. For if law could justify and save, the Law of Moses would have been adequate and Jesus would not have come to save us lawbreakers. “But now righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known” [Rom. 3:21]. That “righteousness” is Jesus!  “Because you are not under law, but under grace” [6:14].

    Romans and Galatians are two great letters that distinguish between Law and Grace. The committed believer will strive to do God’s will because of his faith. In other words, obedience is a reflection of his faith. And in that sense, we are subject to law or to governing principles and regulations. No man can live without some rule of action that governs his behavior, or at least should govern it, whether it be from Heaven or from man.

    But the bottom line is that Jesus ushered in an arrangement that revolves around Grace and Faith, not built upon a codified law. Jesus is the end of law, as per Paul, insofar as its being the reason or cause for our justification. Jesus and our faith in Him are the reason and cause for our justification and salvation, not perfect adherence to law.

    Then why was the Old Covenant given? To keep the Jews, God’s people, in check until their Messiah should come. “So then, the Law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith [or a system based on faith] has come, we are no longer under a guardian” [Gal. 3:24-25]. Again, let it be understood that we comply with God’s will or precepts because of our faith and trust, not because that by doing so we will be saved in heaven.

Buff
« Last Edit: Fri Apr 15, 2022 - 18:13:22 by Reformer »

Offline GB

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Manna: 10
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #32 on: Fri Apr 15, 2022 - 19:24:27 »
GB:

    I hardly know where to start in responding to your diverse views on obeying commands, grace, and faith. But I’ll give it a shot.

    Paul told the Galatian believers, “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose” [Gal. 2:21]. “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified [counted righteous] by the law” [5:4].

Thanks for the reply, and It's a great topic to study and understand. But I would ask you a few simple questions about the "LAW" if you would be so kind as to answer, I would appreciate it.

In the Law, when a man sinned, and his sin came to his knowledge, what did Moses instruct that man to do, in order to be justified/forgiven?

Did Moses say; "If a man sins, he shall Love his neighbor as himself, and his sin is forgiven"? Did Moses say; "If a man sins, he shall obey the ten commandments, and his sin is forgiven"?

Or did Moses say:

Lev. 4:27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; 28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. 30 And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. 31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

So seriously Buff, you have read what Jesus said about the Pharisees being disobedient and "Omitting the weightier matters of the law"". So what LAW were they promoting for Justification of sins? What "LAW" were they promoting to "Bewitch the Galatians" who had turned to God? The 10 commandments? "Love thy neighbor as thyself"?

Or were they promoting their version of an obsolete priesthood "After the Order of Aaron", with it's "works of the Law" posted in the Scriptures above? A Priesthood which was Prophesied to end, "After Those Days". A LAW in which the people were to go exclusively to the Levite Priest for forgiveness.

Gal. 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

And again;

Acts 13:35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: (Not the Levite Priest according to the "works of the Law" of forgiveness)

39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. (As defined in the Scriptures I posted, regarding the "works of the law" Moses instructed a man that sinned, to engage in)

40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;

And what do the Prophets say?

Duet 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

All this was Prophesied in the Law and Prophets Jesus taught from.

Is. 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: 14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

And again;

Jer. 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

So Buff, how did people receive God's Law before "After those Days?" Was it not through the Levite Priests who were chosen to "Administer to God in the Priest's office"?

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

So Buff, how were the sins of man forgiven before "After those days?" according to the "LAW"? Was it not through the Levite Priest chosen by God to Administer before Him in the Priest's Office?

These questions are relevant and valid, and the answers will explain what the "works of the Law" were, that the Jews, who didn't believe Jesus was the New Priest "After the Order of Melchizedek", were still promoting, and are still promoting to this day in many sects.

I hope you will honor me by answering them.

Thanks Buff.





Offline GB

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Manna: 10
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #33 on: Fri Apr 15, 2022 - 20:08:08 »
Plain and simply, the law was never sufficient since no one can live their life free of sin, that was Jesus purpose here on earth.

Gen. 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Gen. 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

Gen. 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Job 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Num. 14:24 But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it.

2 Kings 18:1 Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. 2 Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah. 3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did. 4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. 5 He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. 6 For he clave to the LORD, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses. 7 And the LORD was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth: and he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not.

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Luke 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. 26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, 28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, 29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

The preaching that Jesus came to free us from His Father's instruction, is very popular, but false just the same. Just as the popular religious philosophy that God created instructions impossible to follow, lied to them by telling them they could keep them, then slaughtered those who didn't, is also untrue.

Religious tradition is a powerful force. Jesus warned of it several times.


Quote
Jesus spoke regarding the the cleanliness of the cup, and the filth within it, that alone should give you an indication of how the legalist has a tarnished view of God's desires.

Let's look at this Scriptures you referenced.

Matt. 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

So then, in your religion, all these examples of Faithful men I posted from your own bible, are they "Legalist's" filled with extortion and access?

Or did they follow the instructions of their God, and "cleaned first the inside of the cup"?

Quote
Not at all, Jesus was referring to the broader spectrum, perhaps the Sermon on the Mount would be helpful in this instance. Jesus clarified the law and what it meant to truly love God, or truly love the law.

Matt. 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Whose righteousness is Jesus speaking of here Allen? God's or is there another??

Matt. 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

This is the definition of "Legalist" Yes? Those who Seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness?

Matt. 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

The word "Legalist" is a creation of the same religious philosophers who preach to us that it is impossible to repent and turn to God in obedience. A philosophy that the Scriptures, and Jesus Himself, expose as untrue.

Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

I was hoping you might actually answer the questions I posed. But like 4WD, you choose to deflect.

That's OK. I am grateful for the opportunity to share the actual Scriptures with you, and ask the questions anyway.




Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4541
  • Manna: 98
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #34 on: Sat Apr 16, 2022 - 12:21:56 »
GB:

    Your #32 Reply is, in my estimation, short of dealing directly with the scriptures I cited. It would be helpful if you took each one and explained your conception of them. I say that because your reply to what I addressed is basically empty of adequate explanations and clarifications.

    You wander off here and you wander off there and it is difficult to understand your connections as they relate to what I wrote. So give my post and its biblical passages another try.

Buff
« Last Edit: Sat Apr 16, 2022 - 12:24:02 by Reformer »

 

     
anything