legalism

LittleLambofJesus said:

I learn sumthing new everyday

Click to expand...

It takes time my brother, time..be patient with yourself.

Cyberlizard-

Legalism as I have encountered it has this definition: There is a set of laws, either from the Old Testament, the New Testament, or exxlesiastical laws more-or-less 'pulled out of thin air'. Under each law of the set is a subset of laws relating to that law in the main set. For example, at the time that Christ was among us there were over 1,000 laws in a subset under the commandment to keep the Sabbath.

If a person wants to have eternal life he must obey all the laws in the set, including all the laws in the subsets under each law. Ignorance of a law is no excuse for breaking it, so a person must be on guard at all times against breaking any of these numerous laws and thus losing his salvation.

Jesus criticized the Pharisees for laying heavy burdens on others while taking none of the load on themselves. What he was referring to was not sacks of grain or bundles of wood; he was referring to these laws that they were continually adding to, creating ever more stress on the people who were sincerely trying to live Godly lives.

And therein lies the fatal flaw of legalism. Where you have legalism you will inevitably have those who want to dictate to others what they must do and what they must refrain from doing, but have the attitude that they themselves are exempt from those same laws. It's part of mankind's nature; the most dangerous sin is the sin of Pride, which they have fallen victim to.

legalism

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus I learn sumthing new everyday

Click to expand...

Frogster said:

It takes time my brother, time..be patient with yourself.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I need to get a Law Degree

Young) Luke 11:46 and He said, `And to ye, the lawyers, woe! because ye burden men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yeselves with one of your fingers do not touch the burdens.
52 `Woe to ye, the lawyers, because ye took away the key of the knowledge; yeselves not ye enter; and those coming in, ye did hinder.'

I think legalism is just a term used to describe obeying Gods law without also having faith in Christ, or it could also be considered letting the letter of the law rule over the law of the heart. Obeying the law doesn't make someone legalistic because love thy neighbor is a law and Christ teaches us to love one another, putting our hope in law instead of Christ is legalism. But obeying law while having faith in Christ is obedience by faith. Some people will talk you to death about obeying from the heart and not paper, yet Christ spoke those words so we would hear them and obey. So i reject the assertion that one should not obey something that is written on paper, just because its written on paper, that in itself is another form of legalism, in my opinion. In reality they are doing nothing more than obeying the letter of the law themselves when they reject the written law. Even Paul said let him who stole steal no more, why would he teach this if written law is useless? So in reality we all follow the letter of the law, and we shouldn't argue over the law so much, the only thing that we should be concerned with is if we are obeying Gods will. Which is faith and living how God says we should live.

.

winslow said:

Before Pauls encounter with Jusus he believed he was alive because of his outward performance of obeying the law, he believed he was justified by his obedience to the law. When Christ showed him the spiritual nature of the law he then died because he realized no amount of outward obedience can justify a person in the sight of God, because no matter how obedient you are you are not justified by the law, that was never it's purpose. Justification can only come through Jesus and our willingness to let the old man die so we can be raised to a newness of life through the resurrection.

Click to expand...

I think that rejecting the law is not good either. The Jews that followed the law of moses didn't all go to hell. Some must have had faith in God that justified them, yet the law didn't void that faith, it was evidence of their faith. Or something like that.

I still maintain my definition previousl posted ...

New_Wineskin said:

Ok , rough draft off the top of my head ... Legalism is essentially considering that a work is *needed* ( important , required , should do , supposed to do , etc ) for anything regarding one's spiritual state thinking that the Lord wants you to do it when the Lord did not directly tell you to do it or not do it .

How's that ?

Click to expand...

Common methods of displaying legalism ...

One person to another who does not like what the other person is doing or not doing ... "Well , the 'bible' says ..." "Well , Scripture says ..." "Well , Paul writes in ... " . Of course , they may simply quote their theology such as ... "that is sloth" or "that is greedy" "you must go to church" .

Some are legalistic but keep their laws to themselves without preaching at others . May the Lord bless them abundantly . It still pains me that they place such rules on themselves when they aren't very happy about it . But , I pray for them to be free . I know that some will not read the following ... I am not discussing those who have laws the Lord Himself gave them . They are usually not in harm's way and are content to walk as the Lord wants them and allow others to walk the same way .

I don't really care what anyone teaches, I just look at what happens at the end of the story Mathew 7:23
23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’.......and then what Jesus says to the churches in Revelations to he who "overcomes" what are the recipients of this letter overcoming? again having a good balance and rightly dividing the word of God would tell you that legalism to the extreme is wrong, and to be totally without law is wrong

from scratch said:

I can't tell you what the law written on our hearts is. I can tell you what it isn't though. And that is the law written on our hearts isn't the law issued at Sinai. I think that Jesus said this in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus said - you have heard it said... but I say. This is clearly something different. See Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:6-13.

Click to expand...

Hello scratch. Good day to you. I know this was written sometime ago, but I am new here so forgive me. I do not know if someone has responded or not, but just wanted to ask a question or two. Hope you do not mind.

So do you think when Jesus said, you have heard it said, He was referring to Sinai? Who gave the law at Sinai?

thegospelisgoodnews said:

I don't really care what anyone teaches, I just look at what happens at the end of the story Mathew 7:23
23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’.......and then what Jesus says to the churches in Revelations to he who "overcomes" what are the recipients of this letter overcoming? again having a good balance and rightly dividing the word of God would tell you that legalism to the extreme is wrong, and to be totally without law is wrong

Click to expand...

Good point

Originally Posted by from scratch I can't tell you what the law written on our hearts is. I can tell you what it isn't though. And that is the law written on our hearts isn't the law issued at Sinai. I think that Jesus said this in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus said - you have heard it said... but I say. This is clearly something different. See Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:6-13.

Click to expand...

InSpiritandTruth said:

Hello scratch. Good day to you. I know this was written sometime ago, but I am new here so forgive me. I do not know if someone has responded or not, but just wanted to ask a question or two. Hope you do not mind.

So do you think when Jesus said, you have heard it said, He was referring to Sinai? Who gave the law at Sinai?

Click to expand...

Interesting.

you have heard it said | 300 words a day

Six times he starts with “you have heard it said.” Each time the rule came from the law given to Moses. And then Jesus makes the rule more difficult. What started as rules about behavior become rules about attitudes toward behavior.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=you+have+heard+it+said&t=NKJV

Mat 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.'

Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.'

Mat 5:33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.'

Mat 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'

Mat 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'

LittleLambofJesus said:

Interesting.

you have heard it said | 300 words a day

Six times he starts with “you have heard it said.” Each time the rule came from the law given to Moses. And then Jesus makes the rule more difficult. What started as rules about behavior become rules about attitudes toward behavior.

Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for NKJV

Mat 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.'

Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.'

Mat 5:33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.'

Mat 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'

Mat 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'

Click to expand...

Good morning to you LittleLamb. I would have no problem with that if the verse said, you have heard it said........, and this is true, but you must also........ It does not follow that pattern though. It follows the pattern of, you have heard it said, BUT. Which gives it a don't do this, but this context. What I think most people don't realize, and not that they do it on purpose, is if that is how you view it, you create a dichotomy. In essence you have Jesus saying, God said this, but I say this. This can not be. Which is why I ask the question, who gave the law at Sinai? Which is why He said, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." To fill to the fullest, to live to the fullest intent to give us an example. I believe he was speaking against the traditions and the oral interpretations of the time.

Isaiah 42:21 The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness’ sake; He will exalt the law and make it honorable.

Good day to you,

.....