Christian Forums

I'm not saying you fit these definitions, Kevin, but the word legalist makes me think of:

1)  the grinch (who hadn't used his heart in so long that it caused it to shrink....thank heaven for little Cindy Lou Who who caused his heart to grow)

2)  Booty's def: tight britches.  When your britches are tight, you can't think about others cause all you can think about are those tight britches

3) the most scary def:  the legalists who judge others' salvation seem to equate themselves with God

4) People who don't accept the Bible and Jesus' teachings as a whole (prone to take a single verse or verses out of context)

5) People who are frightened of their emotions. Afraid to let God speak to them thru their heart.  Afraid to let the Holy Spirit in....

God help us all to just be Christians...not legalists or change agents.
God bless you Kevin!

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Just another pejorative term used to stick folks you disagree with into a category where you can dismiss them as contemptible. An ancient method of debate where you hope to win by showing disrespect for those you disagree with on some topic.
[/quote]

What is a legalist?  Unfortunately me, at times.   :(

i remember one time when i called myself a legalist on this board. i seriously doubt anyone remembers the rest of that paragraph, but it had to do with my being led by faith and love.

while on this board i have disagreed heartily over theological issues. humbly, i suggest what some here need to realize is that hearty disagreement is needed for growth.
if someone came here, read your points of view and immediately gave up everything they had studied for themselves and believed in just to follow you... well what would you have?
someone turned by every wind, with no true foundation. to give up their beliefs that easily would mean they didn't truly believe in the first place. that kind of fickleness would only happen again when they encountered another wind of change tomorrow. is that the kind of convert anyone here desires?

i believe in God's Word. that Word says submission is necessary. most of the comments here say that works are important but not necessary. that deeds are good but have nothing to do with salvation. my faith in God's Word says otherwise.
so we disagree. big deal. if everybody here believed the same thing this board would die faster than you can say taliban.

booty i think we ARE in communion. i consider you a true believer in Jesus and a worker in the field. praise God for you!(your explanation of your family and habits of naming each other for fun not insult says a great deal about your character that i had no way of knowing before; thanks for that clarification!)

with your permission, i want to explain something. please feel free to edit this post in any way, i was just thinking that the "taliban" thing might make a good example for everyone.
since i've been here i haven't called anyone names. i haven't condemned anyone. i don't recall instigating any attacks on people here, though i have seriously debated issues that people brought up. i haven't said anyone is going to hell. i haven't intentionally insulted anyone, though i think we all realize that typed words are hard to show humility in. and i'm pretty sure some of you still lump me into the "evil" legalist grace hater category... even so i haven't tried to attack anyone, though my defenses against attacks are sincere.

booty, i don't know how involved in irish matters you are. but to me and i guess some others, calling a fellow Christian a taliban is like calling an irish protestant a member of the IRA.
1) such labels are counterproductive.
2) such labels are insulting and offensive.
3) they're not funny and don't make good jokes.


if the church i attended made a habit of labelling all of the more liberal churches as "members of the IRA", not because they kill government workers or practice wanton violence, but just because they're 'rebellious' in our point of view... how would that fly?
1)they're a different religion.
   i personally don't think Islamic people are heaven bound, at least not the militant ones like the "taliban" represent
   many people also don't think catholics are heaven bound, at least not the ones that bomb the community for their cause
2) they murder people

now surely neither of those bear good connotations.
Shorty i think your links are quite good. here's a quote from one of them:

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]There sure are a lot of opinions out there, but I wish there was a little more tolerance. Now, I'm not saying anyone should just go along with something they disagree with just to be "nice", but to this day I've never seen anyone converted to another point of view by being bludgeoned by abusive and insulting language. By "tolerance", I mean letting a person disagree, even they're smug, rude, or condescending, without allowing their behavior to give oneself a license to behave exactly the same way. [/quote]

i agree completely. i and i suppose others feel that "taliban" (and any other stereotype or potential insult) is a poor choice. that's all.
and no matter what your culture finds acceptable; whether you were calling me taliban, legalist, or tight britches none of those things are edifying. they are insulting, and i mean this post to be directed at all of us, not just booty! love one another. disagree, sure! it leads to growth, but don't try to reduce or diminish others with stereotyping or degradation.
just my plea to people i respect.(again for all's consideration)
(booty i think we've completely dealt with our differences; i truly appreciate your apology and thank you again for it, i find great value in your points of view, and i'm just using the taliban thing to address your post, AND to make a general statement to all)...

let me also expound upon the growth of serious debate. if i don't get every argument out there, with every bit of passion and intention, backed by belief and serious study, then i haven't dealt with those beliefs.
does that make sense? is that truly clear? if you can't "beat" every point that i have, then neither can I! understand?
i'm sorry that some may long for only an atheist to disagree with. i'm sorry if different points of view bring unrest among you. but let me speak for myself.
as a result of these dialogues i have come to better focus on grace. i've encountered different theologies and different specific points that back those theologies. that means i've grown.
i think that's what community is all about.
i still believe God's word means what it says. all of what it says. that includes the necessity of submission for salvation, for faith that acts, not just believes. and it also includes grace and the understanding that those actions don't merit salvation. that no one earns it EVEN through submission, but that it is freely given by God.

the point is, you need legalists here. if not here then where? all of us have some legalist in us, especially those who condemn legalists! and all of us are needed here. that too is what community is all about.
help people grow! don't just wish them away.

hey, i'm learning from you folks. hope you don't mind if i stick around! (again, booty - edit, edit, edit as you see fit!)

The problem with a blueprint is that by its nature it must be followed to each detail.  I, of course, contains all details, no matter how apparently trivial.  It also implies that a change of detail results in either a different construction, or something which doesn't work.

It is interesting to note that even the Mosaic Law which we generally think of as being legalistic was actually a document of grace.  The legalists had perverted it by the time of Christ.  Hence He stripped away the legalist interpretations and took people back to the original.

If some of these things have applied to you, yeah, you might be a legalist...

or maybe just human.

Of course, there are a couple of them, if they apply to you, you might be an idiot!

I define a legalist as a person who puts some action or set of actions ahead of salvation, trusts that God will save them because they completed that action, and then demands that others do the same.

I believe the best description of a legalist comes from Jesus.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.[/quote]

I haven't been on here in awhile, but here goes.  A Legalist or Legalistic church is one(s) who believe salvation comes through obedience, preach this and live this way.  They usually think they are the only ones right, doctrinally.  The preachers have sermons on why we do things this way and on who we are, hang onto a name, and look for authority in much of their beliefs or worship practices.  A Legalist is usually more tradition oriented and think there is a clear example in the Bible of formal worship services.  A kind of a works, actions and good deeds = salvation.  It is more of an outward relationship with Jesus instead of inward, mostly based on actions and beliefs.

Legalists tend to be good at grading sins (ie. we can't have a homosexual in the building until they are "cured" but a few swear words in non-Christian company, an off-color joke, or a few "white" lies are OK).

Legalists tend to elevate the worship service to the level of a holy ritual. Must comply with the local standards for the service or it is indecent.

Legalists somehow read Romans 14 to be a one-way street. First one to yell I'm weak wins the debate and isn't bound to giving acceptance to the other as the text says.

Legalists will read the sermon on the Mount or Paul's letters and find rules where they like but examples or cultural matters in before and after the rule as it suits them.

My understanding of a legalist is a good, honest, loving human being that is usually tied up in a knot inside trying to do of themselves, everything perfect to please God. They are on the same journey through this life we are all on, but fear of God dictates their lives, rather than letting Gods kind love lead them and emminate from them. They are truly aware of each word in the Bible, but often can not see the Spirit of those Words until they realize that fear blinds us and Love frees us in Christ.

Renee

:crackup:  :crackup:  :crackup:  :thumbup:  And if I am not a Anarchistic Irish Tinker!!! :thumbup:  :crackup:  :crackup:  :crackup:

http://www.sheepcomics.com/strips/Wools/Wools.htm
http://www.sheepcomics.com/strips/first/first.htm

Interesting links that seem to relate well to legalists versus change agents and Christian websites.

Parson6, that certainly sums it up!

Booty, thought you would appreciate those links!

Josh, Booty, thank you both. The net is prone to misunderstandings and you two have done a great job working to iron out your misunderstandings.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called Sons of God.

Back to legalism

I heard or read a good explanation of the rabbinical law system and how it perverted the law of Moses.

It started with the question of how far can I go before I'm in trouble so someone said "go no further than this". People accepted that idea but the question later arose "how far can I go before I'm past that line" so a new rule was adopted and then the question was asked how does this relate to this other command so a new line was drawn and so forth.

Then someone said "But I've got a problem because there are situations where I need to cross that line but violate the command" so an exception was crafted to allow you to violate the man-made rule without going so far as to violate the understanding of the command.

The process just carried on and on.

In the short-run this legalism is easy because it establishes bright line rules but in the long-run it stifles our growth because we become trapped in following a rule rather than following God in love.

:thumbup: Amen Auld Da!  And prayers on number 6 :pray:

Number 6 is it now?  Auld Da you need to drop the shilling and get the telly repaired! :crackup:  :lookaround:  :noddingsmiley:

I see the Bible as a terrific blueprint to be followed.  None better.

If only we'd stop trying to act as each others' contractors, though, and each others' inspectors, and each others' adjusters sent out from the Office of Property Values.

Am on a networked computer at the University.

I like Janine's analogy of the Bible as a recipe or menu for some delicious spiritual nourishment. That is a redemptive analogy for me, although I also like the analogy of a map that outlines the spiritual journey we are all taking; a journey that is actually led by our Guide, Jesus who, to borrow a phrase from Hebrews, is our Prince Leader....I do not see the Bible so much as some precise set of minute instructions, but as a way of connecting to our Loving Leader who will lead us through this life into the fullness of Eternity.

A simple definition would be salvation through law-keeping.  See Galatians.

I would define a legalist as someone who has a list of rules to follow and feels that as long as he is doing so he is approved of by God.  In addition he usually expects others to agree with and follow his rules.  Those who do not he usually condemns as sinners, heretics, deceived or ignorant.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (winky @ Feb. 27 2003,2:00)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]ARE LEGALISTS SAVED? [/quote]

sorry to get off topic, but I just want to say that I don't we can answer this question as it's stated. We can't judge the salvation of all people who might be considered a legalist. For one thing, we'd all have a different idea of who qualifies under this term.

Being a legalist (at least according to the broad ways we use the term here) doesn't automatically mean you're not saved. But are some legalists lost? Probably. It's like asking if all change agents are saved. Or if all baptists are saved. You can't know the hearts of an entire group of people most of whom you've never met. I'm not entirely sure God has charged us to determine the salvation of even one person whom we do know, much less an entire section of society.

Wendy[/quote]
wendy:

i would indeed ask your question on what i perceived to be a legalist board--are change agents saved--i anticipate a 'no', and would probably phrase it as 'are those who claim to be grace-centered saved'?  why worry about either group, if it's saved?

kevin:  

you're getting the variety of answers i'm sure you can benefit from.  i've not noticed 'legalism' among your numerous faults :p  
be assured the dawn patrol insomnia detatchment of thought police will henceforth scrutinize your every thought/comment....if we have coffee. :cool:
trust no one............

dj

Kevin, good question.  "What makes a person a legalist?"  It is important to say also what a legalism is not also.

1) It is always important to remind ourselves that legalism is not synonymous with conservative.  Simply being conservative does not a legalist make.  By most folks standards (in the religious world) I would be a conservative  but I do not see myself as a legalist.  Further, I have as personal friends some of the most conservative folks you can imagine -- who are also among the most gracious of people you can ever meet.  

2) Legalism is not playing it "safe."  You will hear about "safe" religion frequently from some quarters but safe often becomes simply a veneer for personal whim.  

3) Legalism is not logically coherent.  Legalism has thousands of "legal" loop holes -- while denying it has them.

So what is legalism? First, Legalism is the binding of laws, traditions and opinions as matters of either: 1) Salvation, or 2) fellowship that God has not.  Legalism is the arrogance to sit on Christ's throne in judgement in matters that do not have a direct bearing on salvation.  This, by the way, is not limited to simply "conservatives."  I have personally experienced the "legalism" of liberals who have sat in judgement in matters towards me regarding #1 and #2.

Second, Legalism is the unwitting attack upon the work of God upon the Cross through Jesus and the Indwelling Spirit.  What I mean is the substitution of a form of religion for the essence of it.   Again, this is by no means limited to "conservatives" but also finds a home in "liberals."
 
As to the question "Will legalists be saved?"  I say "why not!"  We are all saved by God's grace not by knowledge, works, pianos, anti-pianos, etc, etc, etc.  Simply put "if a legalist cannot be saved . . . then who can be saved?"  Are we not ALL something of legalist -- deep down in our heart?"  Surely this is a sin we all struggle with.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Milwaukee, WI

legalist?

A document that sequentially itemizes legas.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (david johnson @ Feb. 27 2003,2:22)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]be assured the dawn patrol insomnia detatchment of thought police will henceforth scrutinize your every thought/comment....if we have coffee. :cool:
trust no one............

dj[/quote]
:thumbs-up: now that's funny

I guess I would define a legalist as someone who believes that they have to meet a certain list of demands in order to gain the approval, acceptance, grace, and mercy of God.

A legalist is not just someone who follows the Bible's teaching - we are all supposed to do that - instead it is someone who follows them thinking that they have to fulfill a checklist to get past the pearly gates.

And a third thing that I would say about most legalist is that they believe that if you disagree with them, that you are lost because you are not doing things the way they think they should be done.

Kevin

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Feb. 28 2003,09:31)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]http://www.sheepcomics.com/strips/Wools/Wools.htm
http://www.sheepcomics.com/strips/first/first.htm

Interesting links that seem to relate well to legalists versus change agents and Christian websites.[/quote]
shorty, bless you. The only problem is my name really isn't Lionel. But I certainly have felt just as he did many times!!

AMEN and AMEN (to both Josh and Booty).  
Both of you are very much gentlemen and I appreciate your collective wisdom very much.
Shorty

A Legalist is someone who sees the Bible as a blueprint to be followed - rather than as a love letter from God calling us to get to know Him.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The problem with a blueprint is that by its nature it must be followed to each detail.  I, of course, contains all details, no matter how apparently trivial.  It also implies that a change of detail results in either a different construction, or something which doesn't work.

It is interesting to note that even the Mosaic Law which we generally think of as being legalistic was actually a document of grace.  The legalists had perverted it by the time of Christ.  Hence He stripped away the legalist interpretations and took people back to the original.[/quote]
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]A Legalist is someone who sees the Bible as a blueprint to be followed - rather than as a love letter from God calling us to get to know Him. [/quote]

crocless aussie, well said and I agree.  Janine, there is quite a difference between a recipe and a blueprint in my mind.  I guess maybe you also think this based upon your last post.

I have been accused of being a legalist, and I would like to have the forum's thoughts on how everyone defines "Legalist" when they use the term.  
What does it mean to be a "legalist"?  Before you all run to your dictionary, I know how Webster defines it.  I would like your opinions on how you may use the term.
Thanks

legalists are shark bait when in gcm waters. :(
something of more interest to me is -
ARE LEGALISTS SAVED?  (see, i can use caps).

dj

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]ARE LEGALISTS SAVED? [/quote]

sorry to get off topic, but I just want to say that I don't we can answer this question as it's stated. We can't judge the salvation of all people who might be considered a legalist. For one thing, we'd all have a different idea of who qualifies under this term.

Being a legalist (at least according to the broad ways we use the term here) doesn't automatically mean you're not saved. But are some legalists lost? Probably. It's like asking if all change agents are saved. Or if all baptists are saved. You can't know the hearts of an entire group of people most of whom you've never met. I'm not entirely sure God has charged us to determine the salvation of even one person whom we do know, much less an entire section of society.

Wendy

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]why worry about either group, if it's saved?[/quote]

well, just because they (meaning legalists or change agents) are saved doesn't mean they're right on about every possible doctrinal issue. And, iron sharpens iron, right? So, if someone is convinced that a brother or sister in Christ has interpreted scripture wrongly or doesn't understand God's grace, isn't a discussion in order? Same for someone who thinks their brother or sister is being loose with scripture or advocating change for change sake (that's one I hear a lot associated with change agents). As observed sometimes on this board and often times on other boards, that discussion sometimes evolves into fruitless debates, but ideally, we'd study the scriptures together humbly, share different perspectives, consider other points of view and both go away with a more fine-tuned understanding. Ideally. We all have maturing to do in our understanding of God's word, right?

Just my observation, but I don't think anyone here is trying to save legalists from going to hell, but more trying to save them from
a.) living the rest of their life on earth trying to earn their way to heaven (by having the most correct doctrine, doing enough good deeds, being obedient enough, etc.)
and
b.)dragging others along that frustrating path too.

I suppose there is some legalist in all of us. To me, a person who is acting legalistically is trusting more in the performance of certain actions perceived as binding than in the God who may or may not be the Author of what is perceived as binding.

I see legalism as more transaction-oriented than Christ-oriented. The focus is not on the Messiah but on what rules or commandments He is understood to have given. In this framework one tends to focus more on the human performance than the God of graciousness. In the final analysis it smacks more of human achievement than of Divine givingness.

Salvation by faith, on the other hand, means a throwing of oneself on the mercies of God and not trusting in any performance but God's.

I suppose the difference could be something similar to a situation where (for us in Alabama), someone says; "If you will stop at gasoline stations faithfully every 300 miles, have your oil changed consistently, pay with a Green credit card, and only eat Lay's potato chips, you will get to California. On the other hand, if someone said; "The road goes to California and you are now permitted to travel there, and to help you on your way there are gasoline stations to fuel you up, and plenty of healthy cafes you can have good food at, as you need it. I will even let you use my car, which I paid for, so enjoy the trip.

Both persons stop at gasoline stations, but with a very differing motivation. One sees the trip as a duty to be successfully completed only by firm adherence to the rules, the other sees the trip as a gift.

So many good definitions already this hardly seems needed, but there is one thing I think I would add. It goes along with Bob's highway metaphor. To me, legalists feel the need for a rule for everything. The idea of some issue being open ended is unsettling. Hence the position that developed on the silence of the scripture meaning "No!" as opposed to "Maybe."
The "no" is clearcut, no room for error. The "maybe" means we look at the scripture and try to determine a good answer accepting that others (as in Romans 14) may not reach the same conclusion. It probably reflects a personality trait more than a philosophical one. Some people are simply uncomfortable without a tight regimen. It would be an interesting study to see if the church legalist is also a family and job legalist