Legalism

[now faith]

Saying that we should obey the law is very different from saying that we should obey the law in order to become justified. Obedience to God's law is not about justification, but about sanctification.

Romans 6:15-19 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,[c] you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

We you refer to the Law,are you referring to the Law of Moses?

It's a worn out misconception in that when someone states we are no longer under the Law,to presume the context of Romans 6 places us under the law.

God's Law and santifaction in our hearts is not the Law of works as in the Law of Moses,where animal sacarfice was needed for atonement.

Grace is not a sin licence,it the un merited favor of God through Christ.

Romans 6 is clear on this,if you look at the context of the passage you posted.

Here's a repost :

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
[2] This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
[3] Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
[4] Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
[5] He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

We cannot Preach the Levitical law ,then return to teach the Spiritual law of Salvation in Christ.

It is clear we do not have two masters, one of flesh and one of Spirit.

The Law of Moses was a law of flesh by works,the Law given by Christ is spiritual through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost,this law we need not to be taught by man it is a gift of Salvation.

 

[now faith]

Legalism is demonic,it places conditions on God's word through the manipulation of his Word to suit a personal agenda.

Legalism is nothing more than rhetoric that is promoted by egotistical people who place their values before God.

Legalism is Idolatry,in the unwavering worship of one's opinions.

Legalism equates to manipulation ,of the flock that places trust in the man rather than God's word.

Legalism is passed down generational Heresy void of independent thought.

Legalism bases salvation on fear rather than Faith,it keeps the flock coming back by way of convict and challenge theology.

Legalism is creative in its vices ,it sets a divide in the Body teaching all other doctrines are sin and only through the legalism being spewed can you be saved.

 

[Goodbook]

God did not give the Law to Moses because He thought that he could use a legalistic burden, but rather it was intended to be a delight to keep, as the Psalmists understood (See Psalms 1:1-2 or Psalms 119 for example). It was common to ask a rabbi what they thought was the most important commandment because it helped someone to quickly understand their yoke. It was about showing a full understanding of the law by getting at its essence, not about saying that only the most important commands should be obeyed while the rest should be ignored. Jesus said that the rest of the laws hang on the two greatest commands, or in other words, that the rest of the commands are examples that paint a picture of what it looks like to obey those two. And for what it's worth, it's 613 laws.

sorry I stand corrected. Yes its 613. But this is what Galatians was referring to when it talked about 'legalism'.
For gentiles.
its not that way for jews...for jews..the laws ought to be a pleasure to observe and they know it is for their learning. But to go back under places a heavy burden when they become free in Christ because over time traditions built up that contradicted those laws and they made more of them. And they had loopholes. So what Jesus was saying that they ought to observe the two greatest commandments and then they'd fulfill all 613. Its the spirit of the law, not the letter, written on a believers hearts.

Hope that's a bit clearer.

 

[Soyeong]

sorry I stand corrected. Yes its 613. But this is what Galatians was referring to when it talked about 'legalism'.
For gentiles.
its not that way for jews...for jews..the laws ought to be a pleasure to observe and they know it is for their learning. But to go back under places a heavy burden when they become free in Christ because over time traditions built up that contradicted those laws and they made more of them. And they had loopholes. So what Jesus was saying that they ought to observe the two greatest commandments and then they'd fulfill all 613.

Hope that's a bit clearer.

Again, God did not give the law to Moses because He thought he could use a heavy burden. There is the written law that God commanded to Moses and the oral law that consisted of interpretations, rulings, traditions for how they thought the written law should be kept and fences around it to protect it from being accidentally broken. The discussion in the Bible is not about whether we should obey God (that was a given), but about the correct manner in which God should be obeyed. However, as you pointed out, some of them contradicted the written law, and that is where Jesus had the most conflict with them (Mark 7:6-9). He didn't criticize them for keeping the written law, but for setting it aside to obey their own traditions. Likewise, when he accused them of tying up heavy loads (Matthew 23:4), he wasn't criticizing them for teaching the people to obey what God had commanded, but rather he was criticizing them for teaching their many traditions. Their many traditions were actually a perversion of the law and turned, for instance, what was supposed to be a day of rest dedicated to God into a chore dedicated to minutia. As Jesus said, he came to fulfill the law or clarify the law and to bring us full understanding for how it was intended to be kept.

As I said before, asking a rabbi what they thought was the essence of the law or the most important law was a common question that was not at all taken to be asking them which laws should be obeyed and which should be ignored. We can see other examples of this in Jewish literature with a similar response:

'One of famous account in the Talmud (Shabbat 31a) tells about a gentile who wanted to convert to Judaism. This happened not infrequently, and this individual stated that he would accept Judaism only if a rabbi would teach him the entire Torah while he, the prospective convert, stood on one foot. First he went to Shammai, who, insulted by this ridiculous request, threw him out of the house. The man did not give up and went to Hillel. This gentle sage accepted the challenge, and said:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this--go and study it!"'

Furthermore, Jesus teaching against keeping God's commands would have directly contradicted his words in Matthew 5:17-19 and put him in violation of Deuteronomy 13, thus disqualifying himself as the Messiah and giving the Pharisees for once a legitimate reason to try to stone him. They wouldn't have had to find false witnesses at his trial.

Its the spirit of the law, not the letter, written on a believers hearts.

The discussion of following the spirit of the law vs the letter is not about whether or not the law should be obeyed, but about the manner in which it should be obeyed. Following the law according to the letter is about obeying it legalistically exactly how it is written without regard to the intent behind it. Paul said that the law is spiritual (Romans 7:14), so the law was always meant to be obeyed by faith according the spiritual principles behind it, such as what Jesus spent Matthew 5 discussing. For instance if a married man spent all day fantasizing about having sex with other women, but drew the line at actually having sex, then he wouldn't be committing adultery according to how the law was written, but the he would be violating the spirit of the law, which was intended to change our way of thinking so that we would come to desire the things that God desires. As such, obeying the spirit of the law is much stricter than the law as written and inclusive of it.

 

[twin1954]

Again, God did not give the law to Moses because He thought he could use a heavy burden. There is the written law that God commanded to Moses and the oral law that consisted of interpretations, rulings, traditions for how they thought the written law should be kept and fences around it to protect it from being accidentally broken. The discussion in the Bible is not about whether we should obey God (that was a given), but about the correct manner in which God should be obeyed. However, as you pointed out, some of them contradicted the written law, and that is where Jesus had the most conflict with them (Mark 7:6-9). He didn't criticize them for keeping the written law, but for setting it aside to obey their own traditions. Likewise, when he accused them of tying up heavy loads (Matthew 23:4), he wasn't criticizing them for teaching the people to obey what God had commanded, but rather he was criticizing them for teaching their many traditions. Their many traditions were actually a perversion of the law and turned, for instance, what was supposed to be a day of rest dedicated to God into a chore dedicated to minutia. As Jesus said, he came to fulfill the law or clarify the law and to bring us full understanding for how it was intended to be kept.

As I said before, asking a rabbi what they thought was the essence of the law or the most important law was a common question that was not at all taken to be asking them which laws should be obeyed and which should be ignored. We can see other examples of this in Jewish literature with a similar response:

'One of famous account in the Talmud (Shabbat 31a) tells about a gentile who wanted to convert to Judaism. This happened not infrequently, and this individual stated that he would accept Judaism only if a rabbi would teach him the entire Torah while he, the prospective convert, stood on one foot. First he went to Shammai, who, insulted by this ridiculous request, threw him out of the house. The man did not give up and went to Hillel. This gentle sage accepted the challenge, and said:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this--go and study it!"'

Furthermore, Jesus teaching against keeping God's commands would have directly contradicted his words in Matthew 5:17-19 and put him in violation of Deuteronomy 13, thus disqualifying himself as the Messiah and giving the Pharisees for once a legitimate reason to try to stone him. They wouldn't have had to find false witnesses at his trial.



The discussion of following the spirit of the law vs the letter is not about whether or not the law should be obeyed, but about the manner in which it should be obeyed. Following the law according to the letter is about obeying it legalistically exactly how it is written without regard to the intent behind it. Paul said that the law is spiritual (Romans 7:14), so the law was always meant to be obeyed by faith according the spiritual principles behind it, such as what Jesus spent Matthew 5 discussing. For instance if a married man spent all day fantasizing about having sex with other women, but drew the line at actually having sex, then he wouldn't be committing adultery according to how the law was written, but the he would be violating the spirit of the law, which was intended to change our way of thinking so that we would come to desire the things that God desires. As such, obeying the spirit of the law is much stricter than the law as written and inclusive of it.

No one has ever kept the law, even the Jews. If you think that you do then you have destroyed the highness of the law by bringing it down to a level where you think that you can.

 

[Soyeong]

No one has ever kept the law, even the Jews. If you think that you do then you have destroyed the highness of the law by bringing it down to a level where you think that you can.

The law is God's instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct. It does not follow from the fact that we have all sinned by not keep that conduct perfectly that therefore it is unimportant to have such a conduct. Rather, as obedient children of God, who have been justified by grace through faith, that is precisely the conduct that we are called to have and the conduct that we will have when God completes His work of sanctification in us. It is not us who brings the law down to the level where we can keep it, but God who raises us up and causes us to meet its righteous requirement (Romans 8:4).

 

[twin1954]

The law is God's instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct. It does not follow from the fact that we have all sinned by not keep that conduct perfectly that therefore it is unimportant to have such a conduct. Rather, as obedient children of God, who have been justified by grace through faith, that is precisely the conduct that we are called to have and the conduct that we will have when God completes His work of sanctification in us. It is not us who brings the law down to the level where we can keep it, but God who raises us up and causes us to meet its righteous requirement (Romans 8:4).

The law can never bring righteousness or holiness. What Paul is talking about in Rom. 8:4 is the righteousness of Christ given to us not our own by law-keeping. To claim to keep the law for righteousness of any kind, justifying or sanctifying, is to deny Rom. 10:4 which states that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness.

So my question to you would be which law do you keep?

 

[Soyeong]

We you refer to the Law,are you referring to the Law of Moses?

Indeed.

It's a worn out misconception in that when someone states we are no longer under the Law,to presume the context of Romans 6 places us under the law.

I do not think that we are under the law, but I also do not think that Paul understood "not being under the law" to mean "free from the instruction of the law". We wouldn't know what sin was if the law didn't tell us (Romans 7:7), so if we are not permitted to sin (Romans 6:15), then we are clearly not permitted to transgress the law.

God's Law and santifaction in our hearts is not the Law of works as in the Law of Moses,where animal sacarfice was needed for atonement.

We have a superior means of atonement now, but God's holy, righteous, and good standard did not change, which the law is based upon.

Grace is not a sin licence,it the un merited favor of God through Christ.

Again, if sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), and we don't have a licence to sin, then we don't have a licences to transgress the law.

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
[2] This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
[3] Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
[4] Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
[5] He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

We cannot Preach the Levitical law ,then return to teach the Spiritual law of Salvation in Christ.

It is clear we do not have two masters, one of flesh and one of Spirit.

The Law of Moses was a law of flesh by works,the Law given by Christ is spiritual through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost,this law we need not to be taught by man it is a gift of Salvation.

The problem with the Galatians was that they were already justified by faith, but they had begun to listen to those who were teaching that they had to keep the law according to their traditions in order to be justified. The only way to become justified has always been by faith, so the law was never given to Moses so that he would become justified by it, but rather it was given to instruct to him to instruct about the type of conduct that those who are justified are called to have by faith. So trying to become justified by keeping the law is in fact a perversion of the law that has always been intended to be kept by faith. You should not mistake a criticism of a perversion of the law as a criticism of God's holy, righteous, and good law. Paul said that the law is spiritual (Romans 7:14), our faith upholds the law (Romans 3:31) and that the mind set on flesh does not submit to God's law (Romans 8:7), so you are mistakenly identifying the Law of Moses as a law of flesh by works. The Holy Spirit is not in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should obey, and the role of the Spirit is to cause us to obey God's laws (Ezekiel 36:27).

 

[Soyeong]

The law can never bring righteousness or holiness. What Paul is talking about in Rom. 8:4 is the righteousness of Christ given to us not our own by law-keeping.

1 John 3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

There are two closely related concepts: being declared righteous and practicing righteousness or training in righteousness. Being declared righteous is about our justification or our right standing before God while practicing righteousness is about sanctification or the conduct that those who are declared righteous are called to have as we live out our lives in obedience to God and are transformed to be more like Christ in his conduct.

The reason why instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct can't cause us to become holy, righteous, and good is because it was weaken by our flesh (Romans 8:3), or in other words, because our sin nature prevented us from obeying them. God's solution was to inhibit our sin nature so that we could be free to have such a conduct. He accomplished this by sending His Son to pay our penalty for our transgression of the law and to set us free from our sin nature's mastery over us, and to send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to Him. The righteous requirement of the law is obedience, so the righteousness of Christ causes us to be obedient.

To claim to keep the law for righteousness of any kind, justifying or sanctifying, is to deny Rom. 10:4 which states that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness.

I won't deny Romans 10:4, but I will deny that that is how the verse is intended to be understood. While the Greek word "telos" can be translated as "end", a more appropriate translation is "goal". For instance, when you pick up a phone to dial a number, you don't have just any end in mind, but rather you have a specific goal in mind. In Greek literature, saying "the telos of something" is almost always talking about its aim or purpose, not about it coming to an end. The word "end" also has within its range to mean "intention or purpose". Starting in Romans 9:30, Paul uses a number terms relating to foot races, so "goal" fits with the context, whereas making a statement about the law coming to an end doesn't fit at all. Furthermore, that would directly contradict Jesus' words in Matthew 5:17-19 and Paul's words in Romans 3:31. Why would God ever want to free us from holy, righteous, and good instructions and why would we ever want to be free from them?

Jesus said that Moses wrote about him (John 5:46) and at other times he interpreted all of Scripture concerning himself (Luke 24:27), so the reality is that all of Scripture is about, points toward, or is directed at the Messiah the the Messiah is the aim or purpose of Scripture. If you read the OT and you don't see the Messiah, then you've missed the point. The law points toward Christ because it is Christ who can pay for our transgression of it and can enable us to keep it.

So my question to you would be which law do you keep?

Not all of the laws applied to everyone even when the law was given, so it takes prayer and discernment to determine which laws apply to me, but I think laws like God's Feasts, the God's Sabbath, and dietary laws are pretty clear. Does it even make sense to you that Jesus would take the title "Lord of the Sabbath" if he did away with it?

 

[Goodbook]

Were the laws more like guidelines? To God? Rather than ones to be kept to the letter?

In the gentile world for example only lawyers really know all the written laws of our country cos they keep changing.

 

[Goodbook]

Wasnt galatians regarding keeping circumcision and holy days? Gentiles dont need to be circumcised, only in the heart.

 

[Goodbook]

Also in acts, unclean foods were made clean. God gave the vision to Peter. He could eat with gentiles after all.

 

[Goodbook]

I thought this was a baptist forum, not a sda one. Or messianic.

 

[Soyeong]

Were the laws more like guidelines? To God? Rather than ones to be kept to the letter?

In the gentile world for example only lawyers really know all the written laws of our country cos they keep changing.

Saying that we shouldn't obey the law according to the letter is not saying that we shouldn't obey the law, but that we shouldn't obey it legalistically. In Matthew 5, Jesus was saying that according to the letter of the law, someone could lust after women in their hearts without committing adultery, but that it would be in violation of the spirit of the law. The law is spiritual, so there are many more things that are righteous than what it instructs and many more things that are sinful than what it prohibits. The law is meant to teach us about the spiritual principles behind it, with which we can use to determine whether other actions not mentioned in the law are righteous or sinful. The spiritual principle against thinking lustfully about women prohibits a broader range of activities than the law according to the letter, but it also includes the prohibition of adultery, so the spiritual principles behind the law are stricter and go above and beyond what the law as written requires.

Wasnt galatians regarding keeping circumcision and holy days? Gentiles dont need to be circumcised, only in the heart.

Romans 2:26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

Indeed, Gentiles are required to have a circumcised heart, but they were regarded as having a circumcised heart based upon whether or not they kept the law. Galatians was in regard to circumcision, but not God's holy days. The law does not require all Gentiles to become circumcised of the flesh, so by ruling against those who were trying to push that on Gentiles, they were upholding the law.

Also in acts, unclean foods were made clean. God gave the vision to Peter. He could eat with gentiles after all.

There is no law in the Torah that prohibits Jews from eating with Gentiles, so the laws being talked about in Acts 10:28 are man-made laws. Peter gave the interpretation of his vision three times and not once did he say anything about it meaning that dietary laws prohibited, and with no other vision to we reinterpret to mean something other than the stated meaning. A closer inspection of Peter's vision will show that God did nothing of the sort:

Acts 10:10-16 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

To start with, there were all kinds of animals that were lowered down, some of which would have been clean or unclean, so why didn't Peter obey God by killing and eating one of the clean animals? The answer is that the Jews had man-made laws (talked about in Mark 7:3-4) said that something that was clean that came in contact with something unclean would become common or defiled. All of the animals were bundled together, so all of the clean animals that were there had become common. So when Peter refused to kill and eat a clean animal by saying that he had never eating anything that is common or unclean, he was disobeying God to keep a man-made rule. Note that God's rebuke wasn't in regard to his use of the word "unclean", but to his use of the word "common". God said to no call common was he had made clean, so He was countermanding the man-made laws that made clean animals common.

I thought this was a baptist forum, not a sda one. Or messianic.

I was a Baptist for 30 years before I started studying the Jewish cultural context of the Bible and was compelled to change my views on a number of things. Does that count?

 

[Hammster]

"...through obedience to God by the works of the Law of Moses, while trying to improve that Law with the doctrines of men".

Unfortunately, today's Christianity slaps the label of Legalism on anything which does not suit free-wheeling "Christianity". To hold Christians to any kind of standard is falsely deemed Legalism.

So there's no such thing as legalism?

 

[Goodbook]

uh..confusing. I think soeyong you making it more than it really is. Its simple when I read the bible, but confusing when you try to explain it all. Sorry.

I wouldn't worry to much about 'legalism' actually because we are under grace, and grace helps us keep the law anyway esp the two greatest commandments. We not slavishly placing heavy burdens on ourselves and other believers saying you can't even turn a lightbulb on the Sabbath cos it's seen as work.
Jesus wasn't even allowed to heal anyone on the sabbath according to the Pharisees. lol. oh and when he didn't wash his hands eating a bit of corn, they pounced on him.

 

[Soyeong]

uh..confusing. I think soeyong you making it more than it really is. Its simple when I read the bible, but confusing when you try to explain it all. Sorry.

Sorry for being confusing, I'd be happy to clarify myself if you said what specifically was confusing. If it's about Peter's vision, I've always wondered why Peter said that he had never eaten anything common or unclean. I had just assumed that it was two ways of saying the same thing and I believed what I was told that his vision did away with dietary laws. But a closer investigation into the Jewish cultural context of the Bible shows a different picture.

I wouldn't worry to much about 'legalism' actually because we are under grace, and grace helps us keep the law anyway esp the two greatest commandments. We not slavishly placing heavy burdens on ourselves and other believers saying you can't even turn a lightbulb on the Sabbath cos it's seen as work.
Jesus wasn't even allowed to heal anyone on the sabbath according to the Pharisees. lol. oh and when he didn't wash his hands eating a bit of corn, they pounced on him.

You're confusing two aspects: the law God gave to Moses and all of the traditions and rulings that the Pharisees had for how they thought the law of Moses should be obeyed. The position consistently throughout the Bible is that God's laws are holy, righteous, and good, while many of man's laws are not. God did not give the law to Moses to be a legalistic burden, but for it to be a delight, so legalism is a perversion of God's law.

God's grace is in regard to being saved by grace, not in regard to permitting us to disobey Him. Asking Jesus what he though the two greatest commands were is a very different question than asking him which commands should be obeyed. If all God wanted was for people to obey two commands, then why give the rest of the commands in the first place? Rather, Jesus said the rest of the commands hang on the greatest two, so they are examples of what it means to follow those two.

 

[Goodbook]

Are you jewish background? If you are messianic that would explain it.
But if you are gentile then the OT was not written for us to follow cos we were never under the old covenant. We actually didnt have any law. Moses wasnt our leader.

That was written for the israelites as a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. Otherwise EVERYONE would just have to be circumcised again and be kosher.

 

[Goodbook]

I think you would belong in a messianic forum rahter than post in the baptist if you dont agree with what people are saying here. Im sorry. Not that im trying to push you away but...if you no longer fellowship with the baptists and pounce on them for not observing the mosaic laws that is not right.

I notice you would only pick and choose the ones easiest for you, and many of the tradtions we actually cant even do...like as said before circumcision, eating kosher only, and sacrificing animals.

 

[Soyeong]

Are you jewish background? If you are messianic that would explain it.

I was born and raised going to a Baptist church and attended it for around 30 years. A few years ago I was challenged to study the Jewish cultural context of the Bible and to reconsider my understanding of the role of the Jews and of the law. Like you, I was very resistant to my current position, so I don't blame you for also being resistant, but after a couple years of studying the issue as objectively as I can, I eventually was persuaded that what I had been told was wrong. There is just such a big disconnect between Jews, who frequently gave thanks to God for giving them the Torah as instructions for life and who took delight in the law (Psalms 1:1-2, Psalms 119, Romans 7:22), and Christians who think that the Torah was a heavy burden and a curse from God, and I came to the conclusion that the Jews had it right - God didn't give the Torah to Moses to be a heavy burden. I hadn't been aware that I had been interpreting the law through an anti-law lens and when I put that lens aside and tried interpret Paul at his word when he said that our faith uphold the law and that the law is holy, righteous, and good, that the NT began to make a lot more sense. I'm sometimes amazed at how God open my eyes to see things that had been there all along and at how I had missed it. I think I've learned much more about the Bible in the past 3 years than the previous 30, so I'd highly recommend studying the Jewish cultural context of the Bible, even if you don't come to the same conclusions that I did.

I think you would belong in a messianic forum rahter than post in the baptist if you dont agree with what people are saying here. Im sorry. Not that im trying to push you away but...if you no longer fellowship with the baptists and pounce on them for not observing the mosaic laws that is not right.

I seem to have a little bit of a different philosophy when it comes to forums, where I am more concerned with topic than the particular subforum that it was brought up in. I can understand if someone only wants input from Christians or something, but if the topic is legalism, then you should welcome people who have a variety of opinions about the law as long as we are willing to make the case for our position from Scripture. We're here to have a discussion, not to be in a clique. I'm not sure what legalism has to do specifically with Baptists, so I'm not even sure why it was brought up in this subforum rather than something more general. I'm not here to pounce on you guys, I'm just here to have a discussion about the legalism and the law and hopefully to be persuaded by you if you make the stronger argument or to have you be persuaded by mean if I make the stronger argument. I've been wrong before, so there is the chance that I made a mistake when I switched my views, which is why it is helpful to have these sorts of discussions.