Author Topic: Defining Legalism  (Read 2213 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GB

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Manna: 10
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #35 on: Sat Apr 16, 2022 - 13:31:09 »
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

We shall see!!

You posted;

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

So I am assuming you understand that all men have sinned, and are in need of Justification. Paul is dealing with Jews here which are Bewitching the Galatians by requiring they be Justified "By the Law", or more specifically detailed in Gal. 3, by the "works of the Law".

My simple, relevant question is;

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?


Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11007
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #36 on: Sat Apr 16, 2022 - 13:59:16 »
My simple, relevant question is;

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?
You are adding the word justified to Leviticus and we will add~even forgiveness under both testaments are the same. The doctrine of justification of which forgiveness is the main part of justification again is the same in both testaments as I have said many times over and have proved this to be so.
Quote from: The prophet David
Psalms 32:1,2~"Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile."
You are trying to take the OT sacrifices which were only figures and types of the truth and apply them to be interpreted literally as a means of forgiveness.

Consider with me~in the gospel before Christ's died, how were people forgiven? By confession and repentance! Just as we are today! Peter went out and wept bitterly when he sinned and repented, and his sin was forgiven and right back into fellowship with Christ and other believers! You grossly misunderstand the OT sacrifices and how often they offered them up. Believers sinned every day...well, let's be honest, hardly a minute goes by with us not sinning. But, there were certain sins in the OT (and even in our own life) where we have to address those sins IMMEDIATELY, and there were offerings in the OT available for such sins. Even in Leviticus, there were different offerings for different people based on their status. The common people's sins were not as great, as... let's say the priest...... God demanded more from them, than from the common person. 

That being said, justification and forgiveness are the same in both testament~by grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus' perfect life of obedience, which those sacrifices pointed to.
Quote from: A wise man once said
"Inconsistency is the hallmark of error, but truth inspires changes."
« Last Edit: Sat Apr 16, 2022 - 14:09:31 by RB »

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4541
  • Manna: 98
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #37 on: Sat Apr 16, 2022 - 23:17:49 »
GB:

    You paid very little attention to the verses I posted in "Defining Legalism." You asked instead, "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?

   There are many passages in the old covenant scriptures that deal with your question. Which book, chapter, and verse are you alluding to? I want to examine the context and original meaning.

Buff

Offline GB

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Manna: 10
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #38 on: Sun Apr 17, 2022 - 09:47:05 »
GB:

    You paid very little attention to the verses I posted in "Defining Legalism." You asked instead, "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?

Now that's just not true Buff. You gave a lot of your own words, to which I replied, in detail, in a quite long post. You quoted more words from Swindoll than God, to which I also replied, posting Scriptures which you have  completely ignored so far. You posted only one verse from the actual scriptures,  [Luke 17:10] in which I agreed, and supported with other scripture. And I asked you several questions, that you have refused to answer, and are still refusing.

How can you honestly say I "paid little attention" to the scriptures you posted, when you only posted one? It seems, if I might humbly and respectfully point out, that in reality, it is you who "paid little attention" to my reply and the many scriptures I posted.

Which is fine, you don't have to treat others who may question you, with the courtesy and respect of answering their inquiries. But it would have been nice if you did.


Quote
   There are many passages in the old covenant scriptures that deal with your question. Which book, chapter, and verse are you alluding to? I want to examine the context and original meaning.

Buff

Now Buff, Surely you know full well what "works" Moses directed the "common man" to do, if his sin came to his knowledge.

I assumed when you made the thread, that it was open for honest discussion and debate. It seems I may have assumed wrong.

Nevertheless, it is a great topic, and certainly worthy of honest, unbiased consideration and examination of scriptures in regard to the thread "Defining Legalism", especially since this word itself, is a creation of this worlds religious philosophers, and found no where in the Scriptures.

I do appreciate being able to share my perspective, even though you obviously aren't interested.

 







Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #38 on: Sun Apr 17, 2022 - 09:47:05 »

Online 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13970
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #39 on: Sun Apr 17, 2022 - 10:53:22 »
Now Buff, Surely you know full well what "works" Moses directed the "common man" to do, if his sin came to his knowledge.
But, that has nothing to do with Paul's discussions about justification by faith apart from works of the law; or about legalism for that matter.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #39 on: Sun Apr 17, 2022 - 10:53:22 »

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4541
  • Manna: 98
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #40 on: Sun Apr 17, 2022 - 11:48:07 »
GB:

    Once again, "There are many passages in the old covenant scriptures that deal with your question. Which book, chapter, and verse are you alluding to? I want to examine the context and original meaning."

Buff

Offline GB

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Manna: 10
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #41 on: Sun Apr 17, 2022 - 11:59:19 »
You are adding the word justified to Leviticus and we will add~even forgiveness under both testaments are the same. The doctrine of justification of which forgiveness is the main part of justification again is the same in both testaments as I have said many times over and have proved this to be so.


I agree that the words Justification/forgiveness/atonement all imply the same thing in both the Law and Prophets, and the Gospels, and are all necessary for Salvation. You have no argument from me on that point.

Quote

 You are trying to take the OT sacrifices which were only figures and types of the truth and apply them to be interpreted literally as a means of forgiveness.


No, I understand, just as David and Zacharias, John the Baptist and Simeon understood, that the Levitical Priesthood, with it's sacrificial "works", or as Paul calls them "The Law of Works", were "shadows" of what was to come. My point is, and has always been, that the Pharisees didn't Believe the Prophets, didn't believe Moses, didn't believe in the Oracles of God, and therefore they didn't understand the "shadow". Like you articulated so nicely, the unbelieving Jews "applied them to be interpreted literally as a means of forgiveness". I hope you will allow me to use this phrase, as it defines my point perfectly.

I am not doing this RB. I am simply pointing out that the Pharisees/unbelieving Jews, who Paul and the Disciples were Addressing in Acts, Romans and Galatians, and the Hebrews author, in chapters 7-10, were still relying on and still promoting this "Law of works" for justification/forgiveness, even 14+ years after the Lamb of God had been Slain.

Is this not Biblically True?

Quote

Consider with me~in the gospel before Christ's died, how were people forgiven? By confession and repentance! Just as we are today! Peter went out and wept bitterly when he sinned and repented, and his sin was forgiven and right back into fellowship with Christ and other believers! You grossly misunderstand the OT sacrifices and how often they offered them up. Believers sinned every day...well, let's be honest, hardly a minute goes by with us not sinning. But, there were certain sins in the OT (and even in our own life) where we have to address those sins IMMEDIATELY, and there were offerings in the OT available for such sins. Even in Leviticus, there were different offerings for different people based on their status. The common people's sins were not as great, as... let's say the priest...... God demanded more from them, than from the common person.

Yes, there is greater condemnation for those who fancy themselves as teachers, this is true. I don't believe Zacharias, Abel, Abraham, Noah, Job, Caleb, Gideon, Simeon, Anna, John the Baptist, all sinned (Transgressed God's commandments) every minute of every day. That is Calvin talking through you, in my view. But I don't want to get off the subject, we can save this discussion for another day.

It seems as if you are the only one willing to even engage in a conversation and I am thankful for that.

Please consider the following.

Jesus is still the Priest of God, YES? He is Still an Advocate between us and the Father, Yes?

So please consider, What is the difference between this verse;

1 John 3:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, (Unwittingly) we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

And this verse? 

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.

In both cases we have God's Children, who are Faithful to Him, but who may fall, and unwittingly sin in the trials and journey God places them in, as they grow in the knowledge of God, learning obedience by the things they suffer.. In both cases God has provided them a Priest, without which there is no Justification, who is an advocate with the Father on their behalf, to provide for their cleansing and forgiveness.

Is this not truth Red?

  One Priesthood Covenant, the 1st made with Israel, was a carnal, fleshy shadow of the other, which was Spiritual. YES???

One, the 1st Priesthood Covenant with Israel, made way for the other, a "New" Priesthood Covenant with Israel, as the Law and Prophets Prophesied. YES???

 One Priesthood Covenant required sacrificial "works" for atonement, "After the Order of Aaron", through a Priesthood given Specifically to the Tribe of Levi, and the other a (New) Priesthood, which came to be "After those days", required a sacrificial "work" "After the Order of Melchizedek", which only Jesus, from the tribe of Judah, qualified to perform. YES???


 The first (OLD) Priesthood Covenant given to Israel, required repentance and "Works", offered to the Anointed Priest of God, from the sinner YES????

The second (NEW) Priesthood Covenant requires repentance and "Faith" offered to the Anointed Priest of God, from the Sinner. YES???

The Priest's of the "Old" Priesthood Covenant, persecuted the Priest of the "New" Priesthood Covenant. YES???

So Red, what is untrue about this understanding of the Scriptures?
 

Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11007
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #42 on: Sun Apr 17, 2022 - 12:49:41 »
No, I understand, just as David and Zacharias, John the Baptist and Simeon understood, that the Levitical Priesthood, with it's sacrificial "works", or as Paul calls them "The Law of Works", were "shadows" of what was to come.
GB~actually what Paul called the works of the law (Galatians 2:16; etc.) would include any work wherein man has an active part in, be whatsoever that may be~with different sects it changes.
Quote from: GB Reply #41 on: Today at 11:59:19
"The Law of Works", were "shadows" of what was to come.
Not necessarily~you are calling it~"The Law of Works"~yet Paul used the term works of the law~which would be...ANY and ALL works require by a law, or commandment in order be saved from sin and condemnation.
Quote from: GB Reply #41 on: Today at 11:59:19
My point is, and has always been, that the Pharisees didn't Believe the Prophets, didn't believe Moses, didn't believe in the Oracles of God, and therefore they didn't understand the "shadow".
They believe, yet their sin was they added to so they could include their own works as being acceptable unto God instead of submitting themselves unto the righteousness of God, which is JESUS CHRIST who IS the end of the law to every one that believes in CHRIST ALONE for righteousness!
Quote from: Paul
Roamns 10:3,4~For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
You stated and then asked:
Quote from: GB Reply #41 on: Today at 11:59:19
I am simply pointing out that the Pharisees/unbelieving Jews, who Paul and the Disciples were Addressing in Acts, Romans and Galatians, and the Hebrews author, in chapters 7-10, were still relying on and still promoting this "Law of works" for justification/forgiveness, even 14+ years after the Lamb of God had been Slain.

Is this not Biblically True?
Well in Acts, he confronted men who wanted to ADD their works to what Christ accomplished by his life of obedience. Paul and  Barnabas would have none of this.
Quote from: Luke
Acts 15:1,2~"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
You see, they believed Moses on circumcision, yet they totally misunderstand its purpose, etc. Men today, desire to add their works as well....their faith, their baptism, keeping the Jewish Sabbath, not eating certain meats, etc., etc.; the list is long.

In Galatians, Paul was upbraiding the saints in Galatia for being bewitched by false brethren. Who was trying to convince them that salvation was NOT of pure grace but they had to do certain works, like abstaining from certain meats, observing certain days, etc., etc. Paul taught them that the just shall live by faith IN Christ's perfect life of faith and obedience. He taught them that the life they were living in the flesh they were doing so by the faith of Jesus Christ, or else, they would have NONE. Galatians 2:20.
Quote
Galatians 2:19-21~"For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

Quote
So please consider, What is the difference between this verse;

1 John 3:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, (Unwittingly) we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

And this verse?

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.

In both cases we have God's Children, who are Faithful to Him, but who may fall, and unwittingly sin in the trials and journey God places them in, as they grow in the knowledge of God, learning obedience by the things they suffer.. In both cases God has provided them a Priest, without which there is no Justification, who is an advocate with the Father on their behalf, to provide for their cleansing and forgiveness.

Is this not truth Red?

  One Priesthood Covenant, the 1st made with Israel, was a carnal, fleshy shadow of the other, which was Spiritual. YES???

One, the 1st Priesthood Covenant with Israel, made way for the other, a "New" Priesthood Covenant with Israel, as the Law and Prophets Prophesied. YES???

 One Priesthood Covenant required sacrificial "works" for atonement, "After the Order of Aaron", through a Priesthood given Specifically to the Tribe of Levi, and the other a (New) Priesthood, which came to be "After those days", required a sacrificial "work" "After the Order of Melchizedek", which only Jesus, from the tribe of Judah, qualified to perform. YES???


 The first (OLD) Priesthood Covenant given to Israel, required repentance and "Works", offered to the Anointed Priest of God, from the sinner YES????

The second (NEW) Priesthood Covenant requires repentance and "Faith" offered to the Anointed Priest of God, from the Sinner. YES???

The Priest's of the "Old" Priesthood Covenant, persecuted the Priest of the "New" Priesthood Covenant. YES???

So Red, what is untrue about this understanding of the Scriptures?
 
Let me come back and answer this in detail.

Online 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13970
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #43 on: Sun Apr 17, 2022 - 13:28:39 »
GB~actually what Paul called the works of the law (Galatians 2:16; etc.) would include any work wherein man has an active part in, be whatsoever that may be
That is simply not true. Is my driving a car, something that I have and active part in works of the law?  Was riding a horse in OT times works of the law? Was a woman nursing her child then or now works of the law?  RB, your definition of works of law is different from GB's definition, but not much better  -- some better, but not much.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #43 on: Sun Apr 17, 2022 - 13:28:39 »

Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11007
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #44 on: Sun Apr 17, 2022 - 13:35:28 »
That is simply not true. Is my driving a car, something that I have and active part in works of the law?  Was riding a horse in OT times works of the law? Was a woman nursing her child then or now works of the law?  RB, your definition of works of law is different from GB's definition, but not much better  -- some better, but not much.
You are not being reasonable. I was speaking in reference to being SAVED per Acts 15:1,2.  If Paul was here, he would agree~acutally, he is here as far as us hearing his voice when we read the scriptures.  ::reading::

Yours and GB are not that far apart.....according to Paul  ::reading::
« Last Edit: Sun Apr 17, 2022 - 13:45:09 by RB »

Offline GB

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Manna: 10
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #45 on: Sun Apr 17, 2022 - 13:54:09 »
GB~actually what Paul called the works of the law (Galatians 2:16; etc.) would include any work wherein man has an active part in, be whatsoever that may be~with different sects it changes.

No Red. That is simply not true.

Rom. 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing[/color] seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

2 Tim. 3:16 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.

Rom. 2:(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Acts. 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.


Quote
Not necessarily~you are calling it~"The Law of Works"~yet Paul used the term works of the law~which would be...ANY and ALL works require by a law, or commandment in order be saved from sin and condemnation.

Rom. 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Paul calls the Law of Justification in the Scriptures "Law "of works" right here. Again, You must remember, I am interested in what the Scriptures actually say red. Not some popular religious philosophy of this world.

Quote
They believe, yet their sin was they added to so they could include their own works as being acceptable unto God instead of submitting themselves unto the righteousness of God, which is JESUS CHRIST who IS the end of the law to every one that believes in CHRIST ALONE for righteousness!

Again, what you say, and what Jesus says are so completely different. I should have known better to get into this with you again. I made a mistake.

Rom. 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Rom. 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

Matt. 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Matt. 21:32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

John 12:37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:

John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

Jude 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

Duet. 9:23 Likewise when the LORD sent you from Kadeshbarnea, saying, Go up and possess the land which I have given you; then ye rebelled against the commandment of the LORD your God, and ye believed him not, nor hearkened to his voice.

Psalms 78:21 Therefore the LORD heard this, and was wroth: so a fire was kindled against Jacob, and anger also came up against Israel; 22 Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation:

Ps. 106:24 Yea, they despised the pleasant land, they believed not his word: 25 But murmured in their tents, and hearkened not unto the voice of the LORD.

I'm sorry Red,

I forgot for a moment how you have re-written the bible and created your own religion. To preach that the Pharisees believed God, is so contrary to God's word, there is no need to continue. I made a mistake is attempting to engage in a Biblical discussion with you. I'm sorry I replied at all.

Thanks for the reply, but there is no sense in engaging with someone who has no little regard for the actual scriptures.

No need for any further reply.

Thanks Red.





Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9622
  • Manna: 308
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #46 on: Sun Apr 17, 2022 - 14:02:57 »
This thread has turned from Defining Legalism to defending the law, they are not one and the same.

Offline GB

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Manna: 10
  • Gender: Male
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #47 on: Sun Apr 17, 2022 - 16:46:14 »
This thread has turned from Defining Legalism to defending the law, they are not one and the same.

It's pretty difficult to use the Bible to define a word that doesn't exist in it. A word created for the purpose of promoting a religious philosophy that isn't true, Namely, that the Pharisees were trying to "earn Salvation" by keeping the Commandments of God. Or that they were requiring folks to keep the 10 Commandments, in order to be Justified for breaking the 10 commandments. All of which is untrue, at least if the Scriptures are the source of information.

 All this is easily exposed in an honest examination of the scriptures, for those who would be interested in the Biblical truth. But it is an old religious tradition, and most folks just are not interested in casting doubt on popular doctrines, that have accepted as truth for so long. The Jews were confronted with the same dilemma when Jesus opened their Bible and Pointed out their unbelief in what was written.

It also feeds the insidious falsehood, that is implied about the God of the Bible, which is that HE created Laws so grievous, so unjust, so many in number, that it was impossible to obey them, then HE lied to His People by telling them they could obey them, then slaughtered them by the thousands when they didn't. So Jesus, His son, had to come and save mankind from God and His impossible Laws. This is the popular religious philosophy promoted by many of the religious businesses of this world, "without the lipstick" of course.

The word Legalism actually comes from Chinese Philosophy. It's an interesting read.

Taken from the World History Encyclopedia;

"Legalism in ancient China was a philosophical belief that human beings are more inclined to do wrong than right because they are motivated entirely by self-interest and require strict laws to control their impulses. It was developed by the philosopher Han Feizi (l. c. 280 - 233 BCE) of the state of Qin.

Can anyone say "Total depravity"?

The English definition goes like this:

legalism
noun
1.Overly strict or rigid adherence to the law or to a religious or moral code.
2.A legal term or expression, especially one that is unnecessarily technical.
3.Strict adherence to law or prescription; belief in the efficacy of adhering strictly to the requirements of the law.

By the very Definition of this word, the Pharisees were not "Legalists" according to Scriptures. At least where God's instructions were concerned. I could post EVERY Word Jesus spoke to define the Pharisees, and not ONE time, would HIS definition of them align with the definition of the word.

 Matt. 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Sadly, His truths have not been received very well on this forum, not much different than how the Mainstream Preachers of Jesus time received His Words.

Nevertheless, it is a fascinating study into how this word was introduced, and became infused into the mainstream religions of this world we were born into.






Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11007
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Defining Legalism
« Reply #48 on: Mon Apr 18, 2022 - 05:02:02 »
This thread has turned from Defining Legalism to defending the law, they are not one and the same.
I agree~let's see what we can do to flip this back to the original design of this thread.

GB, I'm going to answer you in another thread which I will start today.

 

     
anything