Spiritual Fences (legalism)

[jimmudcatgrant]

"James was probably written by James, but it's just a conglomeration of sayings he heard Jesus say, with his own opinions thrown in.  It doesn't belong in canon, IMO. "

Oh, brother.  James has been compared to wisdom literature in the O.T.  Some say it is a series of paraenesis.  James Adamson wrote a book called The Epistle of James that was his doctoral dissertation.  He says the Book of James is a distillation of the Sermon on the Mount. 

So sayings of Jesus don't belong in the bible.  Right. Let's take out the Sermon on the Mount and the Olivet Discourse, and all the parables, etc.  James wrote the book, not as his opinion, but the word of God.

More about James from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In its expressive abruptness and eloquent austerity, James

 

[Izdaari]

Jim, I'm sort of getting the impression that you like James.  ;D

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Jim, I'm sort of getting the impression that you like James.  ;D

Yep!  It is the book I have started a study of, and I am trying to write a commentary style user book on it in my bible software program. 

 

[Agent P]

If my 'fences' are much lower or more liberal than yours, will you still respect them, or does that only go one way?

Here's something to consider: If I drink a beer, maybe it's because I'm thirsty and I like it, not because I'm trying to flaunt anything.

Having heard Piper out (and thanks again for the video), I understand where he's coming from, and he seems a likable and engaging fellow. He's not wrong, for him.

I'm not so sure about Johnny Mac. I own his study bible, and in it he is one pigheaded, 'my way or the highway' pezzonovante. I kind of regret the purchase.

My problem lately is with the Young Restless Reformed crowd who look down on me because I DON'T like to drink beer and smoke cigars.  It has reached the point with the younger crowd that it is almost a fence of its own that you MUST engage in these practices in order NOT to be legalistic.

I don't not do these things because I'm legalistic, I refrain from them because I don't LIKE them.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Antinomians have been shouting "legalist" at those who love God's law(s) for millenia, and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.  It's man's nature to drift towards radical autonomy.

 

[Recovering IFB]

If my 'fences' are much lower or more liberal than yours, will you still respect them, or does that only go one way?

Here's something to consider: If I drink a beer, maybe it's because I'm thirsty and I like it, not because I'm trying to flaunt anything.

Having heard Piper out (and thanks again for the video), I understand where he's coming from, and he seems a likable and engaging fellow. He's not wrong, for him.


I'm not so sure about Johnny Mac. I own his study bible, and in it he is one pigheaded, 'my way or the highway' pezzonovante. I kind of regret the purchase.

My problem lately is with the Young Restless Reformed crowd who look down on me because I DON'T like to drink beer and smoke cigars.  It has reached the point with the younger crowd that it is almost a fence of its own that you MUST engage in these practices in order NOT to be legalistic.

I don't not do these things because I'm legalistic, I refrain from them because I don't LIKE them.

that is your decision to make. The problem is I have is that were told that we are in sin when we participate in these things God has clearly allowed us to do. Besides' that it is a Rom14 issue with me.
I am coming out of an IFB ministry that taught false doctrine on alcohol(Jesus turned wine into grape juice) and music(if it makes your foot tap, it's wicked) and so forth, and I bought into everything. When I was confronted with Deut 14:26, it was a true wake up call for me to truly seek truth. It's not that I was looking for an excuse to "party" (1 Pet 2:16)  but a true realization that I was trying to  live a life that I wasn't able to keep and truly find out what grace really was.

 

[Agent P]

My problem lately is with the Young Restless Reformed crowd who look down on me because I DON'T like to drink beer and smoke cigars.  It has reached the point with the younger crowd that it is almost a fence of its own that you MUST engage in these practices in order NOT to be legalistic.

I don't not do these things because I'm legalistic, I refrain from them because I don't LIKE them.

that is your decision to make. The problem is I have is that were told that we are in sin when we participate in these things God has clearly allowed us to do. Besides' that it is a Rom14 issue with me.
I am coming out of an IFB ministry that taught false doctrine on alcohol(Jesus turned wine into grape juice) and music(if it makes your foot tap, it's wicked) and so forth, and I bought into everything. When I was confronted with Deut 14:26, it was a true wake up call for me to truly seek truth. It's not that I was looking for an excuse to "party" (1 Pet 2:16)  but a true realization that I was trying to  live a life that I wasn't able to keep and truly find out what grace really was.

Been there, done that, too; with the Jesus turned water to Welch's routine.  On the other hand, the most footstompin' music I ever heard in my life was in fundy Southern Baptist churches.

You make the correct point by appealing to Romans 14.  Grace is more than just pushing the envelope just to see where the fence is, (now there's a mixed metaphor) but understanding that our freedom in Christ is ensured by our holiness.  That is internal stuff of the heart, not our indulgence in or abstinence from adiaphora.

 

[Miller]

If my 'fences' are much lower or more liberal than yours, will you still respect them, or does that only go one way?

Here's something to consider: If I drink a beer, maybe it's because I'm thirsty and I like it, not because I'm trying to flaunt anything.

Having heard Piper out (and thanks again for the video), I understand where he's coming from, and he seems a likable and engaging fellow. He's not wrong, for him.

I'm not so sure about Johnny Mac. I own his study bible, and in it he is one pigheaded, 'my way or the highway' pezzonovante. I kind of regret the purchase.

My problem lately is with the Young Restless Reformed crowd who look down on me because I DON'T like to drink beer and smoke cigars.  It has reached the point with the younger crowd that it is almost a fence of its own that you MUST engage in these practices in order NOT to be legalistic.

I don't not do these things because I'm legalistic, I refrain from them because I don't LIKE them.

Nope, don't look down at you at all, brother. Enjoy your liberty in Christ to refrain from these items. Praise God for the freedom that is found in Him. I only look down upon those who try to rob me of my liberty in Christ by condemning me for things that Scripture does not.

 

[Izdaari]

If my 'fences' are much lower or more liberal than yours, will you still respect them, or does that only go one way?

Here's something to consider: If I drink a beer, maybe it's because I'm thirsty and I like it, not because I'm trying to flaunt anything.

Having heard Piper out (and thanks again for the video), I understand where he's coming from, and he seems a likable and engaging fellow. He's not wrong, for him.

I'm not so sure about Johnny Mac. I own his study bible, and in it he is one pigheaded, 'my way or the highway' pezzonovante. I kind of regret the purchase.

My problem lately is with the Young Restless Reformed crowd who look down on me because I DON'T like to drink beer and smoke cigars.  It has reached the point with the younger crowd that it is almost a fence of its own that you MUST engage in these practices in order NOT to be legalistic.

I don't not do these things because I'm legalistic, I refrain from them because I don't LIKE them.

That's cool with me.  8)

And these Young Restless Reformed types? I don't know them. I'm not young (just had my 58th birthday). I might be a little restless. I'm not Reformed, but I am officially Lutheran (had my ELCA confirmation earlier this year). I don't smoke cigars or use any other tobacco products because I don't like them.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Antinomians have been shouting "legalist" at those who love God's law(s) for millenia, and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.  It's man's nature to drift towards radical autonomy.

Legalists have been shouting "antinomianism" at those who love God's freedom for millenia, and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.  It's man's nature to want to control how others live. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Antinomians have been shouting "legalist" at those who love God's law(s) for millenia, and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.  It's man's nature to drift towards radical autonomy.

Legalists have been shouting "antinomianism" at those who love God's freedom for millenia, and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.  It's man's nature to want to control how others live.

I lean libertarian(ish) and am a hearty believer in soul liberty, so that rap don't stick to me.  But the love of God's law/commands is an earmark of a child of God, and freedom is only free to obey Christ.

 

[Izdaari]

Antinomians have been shouting "legalist" at those who love God's law(s) for millenia, and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.  It's man's nature to drift towards radical autonomy.

Legalists have been shouting "antinomianism" at those who love God's freedom for millenia, and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.  It's man's nature to want to control how others live.

I lean libertarian(ish) and am a hearty believer in soul liberty, so that rap don't stick to me.  But the love of God's law/commands is an earmark of a child of God, and freedom is only free to obey Christ.

Very good, and I think we can all agree on that. 8)

Those who get called legalists by me are those who confuse their particular church community's or culture's standards with God's laws or commands. That may at times include those who are reading their Bible with a more literal hermeneutic than mine, if it means they're taking something to be God's law that I think is from man. I do at times use the historical-critical method. I am not a fundamentalist, nor even an evangelical anymore, though I'm too supernaturalist and too orthodox to be an actual liberal (as opposed to the fundamentalist definition of liberal: anybody less conservative than they are).

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Izdaari]Very good, and I think we can all agree on that. 8)

Those who get called legalists by me are those who confuse their particular church community's or culture's standards with God's laws or commands. That may at times include those who are reading their Bible with a more literal hermeneutic than mine, if it means they're taking something to be God's law that I think is from man. I do at times use the historical-critical method. I am not a fundamentalist, nor even an evangelical anymore, though I'm too supernaturalist and too orthodox to be an actual liberal (as opposed to the fundamentalist definition of liberal: anybody less conservative than they are).
[/quote]

This is an analogy you can relate to, I'm sure.  The Southern Baptist Convention <conservatives> have battled the moderates over several issues recently, like alcohol, women in the pulpit, tongues, etc.  The mere fact that they disagree and disallow the moderates their desired practices does not make them in and of itself, legalists.  A legalist is one who either makes works a necessary component of regeneration or sanctification.  Disagreement over matters of doctrine does not mean that the conservatives are saying that their doctrine/dogma makes for meritorious Christian living.  On a tangent closer to home, my pastor is a Hyles graduate.  He has some of the inherited and expected philosophy of such an education.  One of those areas regards the matter of dress.  While in leadership capacity, on the platform of the church for instance, he expects me (and others) to wear appropriate clothing (a jacket and tie for men, which I generally loathe and he knows it).  He is not a legalist for expecting this requirement to be upheld, as he doesn't attach any sanctifying notion to the practice.  Not all matters of contention are a basis for claiming antinomianism or legalism.

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=Izdaari]Very good, and I think we can all agree on that. 8)

Those who get called legalists by me are those who confuse their particular church community's or culture's standards with God's laws or commands. That may at times include those who are reading their Bible with a more literal hermeneutic than mine, if it means they're taking something to be God's law that I think is from man. I do at times use the historical-critical method. I am not a fundamentalist, nor even an evangelical anymore, though I'm too supernaturalist and too orthodox to be an actual liberal (as opposed to the fundamentalist definition of liberal: anybody less conservative than they are).

This is an analogy you can relate to, I'm sure.  The Southern Baptist Convention <conservatives> have battled the moderates over several issues recently, like alcohol, women in the pulpit, tongues, etc.  The mere fact that they disagree and disallow the moderates their desired practices does not make them in and of itself, legalists.  A legalist is one who either makes works a necessary component of regeneration or sanctification.  Disagreement over matters of doctrine does not mean that the conservatives are saying that their doctrine/dogma makes for meritorious Christian living.  On a tangent closer to home, my pastor is a Hyles graduate.  He has some of the inherited and expected philosophy of such an education.  One of those areas regards the matter of dress.  While in leadership capacity, on the platform of the church for instance, he expects me (and others) to wear appropriate clothing (a jacket and tie for men, which I generally loathe and he knows it).  He is not a legalist for expecting this requirement to be upheld, as he doesn't attach any sanctifying notion to the practice.  Not all matters of contention are a basis for claiming antinomianism or legalism.
[/quote]

Alrighty. I can accept that definition. So your pastor isn't a legalist. He's just wrong. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Izdaari]
Alrighty. I can accept that definition. So your pastor isn't a legalist. He's just wrong. 
[/quote]



I gots no problem with folk being "wrong" on non-heretical points of doctrine.  For instance, paedobaptists are seriously "wrong" without being heretics, and they certainly aren't antinomians (or legalists for that matter) merely because of their misguided views on that ordinance.

 

[Castor Muscular]

A legalist is one who either makes works a necessary component of regeneration or sanctification. 

That's not how I use the term.  I consider the Pharisees to have been legalists, and they weren't concerned with regeneration or sanctification.  They simply added their own behavior requirements to God's law.  If you didn't behave the way they expected you to behave, they believed you did not (as you say) love and obey God's law/commands.