Help me - I think I'm being legalistic

LoreneDD said:

"And it comes to pass in that day, is the saying of Jehovah, thou wilt call, My husband; and thou wilt no more call to me, My Baal."

Click to expand...

Then why do you keep calling Him "lord"?
*Off topic, you don't have to answer that...just think about it...if you want.

It doesn't sound funny.

FireDragon76 said:

Don't decontextualize what Dr. Rosenblatt is saying. He's addressing a particular concern- legalism.

Click to expand...

Decontextualize the bible by leaving things out in order to create a false view, and someone is going to step in. You are welcome to link him to the post, show me why I was wrong, and I'll be happy to take my stripes if I am found to be..

HTacianas said:

Well, the gist of his argument is that we don't have to behave ourselves, and keeping commandments is strictly forbidden. That keeping the commandments was legalism. I was just trying to get some insight on just how that works.

Click to expand...

Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15).
Jesus said if you will enter into life, keep the commandments (Matthew 19:17).
Jesus agreed with the lawyer that to love God (with some details) and to love your neighbor is a part of inheriting eternal life. He told the lawyer to do this and he will live (Luke 10:25-28).
Is Jesus a legalist because he taught this way? No.
Did Jesus not really mean what He said above here? No.
Does that mean we are saved by Works Alone without God's grace? No.
We are initially and ultimately saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, but works of faith also play a part in the salvation process, too; For James says he will show you his faith by his works (See James 2:18). Protestants do not define "faith" in the same way that James does. They think "faith" = belief alone, when James says that he will show you his faith by his works. James even criticized the idea of having a "belief alone" kind of faith by saying that even the demons believe and tremble (James 2:19). For faith without works is dead (James 2:17).
Can a dead faith save anyone? Surely not.

The moment one says that works are not necessary for salvation after being saved by God's grace is the moment that they must admit that they can sin and still be saved on some level.

Tone said:

Which is not divorced from it.

Click to expand...

I believe Paul called the old commandments miserable principles, since the teachings of Christ are better.

Kenny'sID said:

Decontextualize the bible by leaving things out in order to create a false view, and someone is going to step in. You are welcome to link him to the post, show me why I was wrong, and I'll be happy to take my stripes if I am found to be..

Click to expand...

You say that word but I don't think you know at all what it means. You're just trying to dodging having to take Doctor Rosenblatt seriously at all.

I know of Dr. Rosenblatt, I've heard him speak before, he doesn't deserve those kinds of insinuations. There's no sinister desire on his part to present anything false about the Bible.

HTacianas said:

Last Wednesday or so I got the sudden hankering to sacrifice a few children to Moloch. It was a passing thought that's gone now so I'm sure I'll be okay.

But it got me thinking. If I don't sacrifice a few kids to Moloch every now and then, am I being legalistic? Am I relying on myself for my salvation?

Click to expand...

Just become a member of the Democratic Party. Sacrifice of children fulfilled. You want have to worry about it.

Michael Collum said:

I believe Paul called the old commandments miserable principles, since the teachings of Christ are better.

Click to expand...

People believe a lot of questionable things about Paul, but we also have to look at what Yahshua said.

HTacianas said:

Last Wednesday or so I got the sudden hankering to sacrifice a few children to Moloch. It was a passing thought that's gone now so I'm sure I'll be okay.

But it got me thinking. If I don't sacrifice a few kids to Moloch every now and then, am I being legalistic? Am I relying on myself for my salvation?

Click to expand...

Of course not. Legalism isn't what many think it is. A Christian brother sees another Christian brother trying to walk out the commandments and he views him as legalistic and trying to earn his own salvation. But, honestly, that is nonsense. In that example, the guy was already a Christian, just trying to walk out his walk as he believes God desires. And he isn't being legalistic.... UNLESS.... he is trying to force others to adhere to what he feels led to do. In other words, it is legalism to try to force obedience on others. It is ALSO legalism when we create a set of doctrinal standards that we make other adhere to or else they can't be part of our group. Bylaws in many places cross this line.

Legalism is a false charge that commonly brought against those who plainly believe Jesus's words in Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:17-19, John's words in 1 John 3:15, Revelation 21:8, James words in James 1:12, James 2:24, and Paul's words in Titus 1:16, Titus 2:11-12, Romans 8:13.

While salvation is received as a free gift of God by faith in Jesus Christ and not of works (Ephesians 2:8-9), we are created unto Christ Jesus for good works (works of faith) (Ephesians 2:10). We do not put the cart before the horse. Works will always follow a true saving faith. Even Eternal Security proponents will say this. But they just self defeat themselves by saying that the works do not save. Yet, if you follow their logic, they circle back and say that a believer will have these works after being saved by God's grace. What some of them don't always tell you is that they think they can commit certain sins and still be saved (like lying, lusting, swearing, hate, not forgive, etc.). They will of course say that no believer will murder, rape, hurt children, be sexually immoral, etc. But I have had Eternal Security proponents admit to me that King David was saved while he committed his sins of adultery and murder. They say that they will live more progressively holy because they are regenerated but no actual sin can separate them from God. This is the kind of message that can send people to turn God's grace into a license for immorality. So many of them (not all of them) throw up the false Legalism charge when we say that we have to love God and love our neighbor as per our standing behind the plain words of Scripture mentioned in Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:17-19, etc.

What they fail to understand is that obedience to God's commands after we are saved by God's grace is not Legalism, but it is loyalty to our Lord Jesus Christ. For Jesus says why do you call me Lord, Lord if you do not do what I say? (See Luke 6:46). Scripture teaches that if you are disloyal to your king, then you are committing treason and you are of another kingdom. Folks tend to think that God's grace gives them a license to ignore God's laws or to minimize their importance. Jesus says you cannot serve two masters. But many today think you can sin (break God's laws) and still be saved. Jesus tells certain believers to depart from Him because they worked lawlessness or iniquity in Matthew 7:23. It only takes rebellion against one serious command of God (like not loving God, or loving your neighbor) to be lawless or in rebellion against the Lord. For how can you hate God and yet still be favored by Him? Does a mental acknowledgement of a certain set of facts really make you in favor with the Lord? James seems to relate the faith that does not produce works with that of demons in James 2:19. James says he will show you his faith by his works (James 2:18). So works of faith are a necessary component of our faith being true; And we are saved by grace through faith according to Ephesians 2:8.

Legalism (Works Alone) was something that Paul was fighting against (Which was "Circumcision Salvationism" i.e. Works Alone Salvationism that did not include God's grace). God's grace is the basis for how we are initially and ultimately saved. Legalism is not obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ after we are saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ by faith; But many of course will claim otherwise. Doing good works to them (after being saved by God's grace) as a part of being in God's good kingdom are dirty words. But sinning on some level and thinking one is saved is okay. In other words, a person is going to do works regardless. The question is: Do you think that a person is saved by:

(a) God's grace + sinful works (plus some good works)? (or)
(b) God's grace + good works?

Nowhere do I ever see the Lord approving of man's thinking that He can commit grievous sin and still be saved. God is holy, righteous, and good; And there is no darkness in God (1 John 1:5). So I fail to see how God could approve of a plan of salvation that makes for an allowance of really bad sin and evil. So while some of them may throw the Legalism charge against us, we know the truth (Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:17-19, 1 John 3:15, Revelation 21:8, James 1:12, James 2:24, Titus 1:16, Titus 2:11-12, Romans 8:13).

FireDragon76 said:

You say that word but I don't think you know at all what it means. You're just trying to dodging having to take Doctor Rosenblatt seriously at all.

I know of Dr. Rosenblatt, I've heard him speak before, he doesn't deserve those kinds of insinuations. There's no sinister desire on his part to present anything false about the Bible.

Click to expand...

That's silly, do people ever stop with the "you don't understand" defense?

Of course I know what it means, or maybe all that was it you thinking you have an "above common man" vocabulary. No 1, don't flatter yourself, no 2, I have opinions about people that make it a point to use terms they think the average Joe won't understand. Even if one never saw the term it's child's play to take it apart and discern the meaning.

I have what he said to go on, and after also taking a look at the link, I concluded what I did. Once again you are welcome to prove me wrong, however for some reason, that hasn't happened as of yet.

Ken Rank said:

In that example, the guy was already a Christian, just trying to walk out his walk as he believes God desires. And he isn't being legalistic.... UNLESS.... he is trying to force others to adhere to what he feels led to do. In other words, it is legalism to try to force obedience on others. It is ALSO legalism when we create a set of doctrinal standards that we make other adhere to or else they can't be part of our group. Bylaws in many places cross this line.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

In more detail, following is something that states what I wanted to better than I, and anyone who likes can check it against the bible. Unfortunately the OSASr's got a hold of that and twisted it into something else, then pretends their version is correct, while never mentioning what the bible really says on it, or the actual origin of "legalism". And honestly, I feel led to point out, no one should be surprised they'd use the bible like that.

Read for yourselves, but In short, the Pharisees were making up laws and expecting all to follow them, putting an extra burden on people. While OSAS attempts to use that to say we need not be concerned with any law when it comes to salvation, a terrible thing to do.:

"The Pharisees were a Jewish group mentioned, either collectively or as individuals, ninety-eight times in the New Testament, mainly in the Gospels.

The root meaning of the word "Pharisee" is uncertain. It is probably related to the Hebrew root meaning "separate" or "detach." From whom did the Pharisees separate? From those, especially priests or clerics, who interpreted the Law differently than they? From the common people of the land? From Gentiles or Jews who embraced the Hellenistic culture? From certain political groups? All these groups of people the Pharisees would have been determined to avoid in their resolution to separate themselves from any type of impurity proscribed by the Levitical law — or, more specifically, their strict interpretation of it.

The Pharisees in Scripture
The New Testament depicts the Pharisees as opponents of Jesus or the early Christians. On the other hand, they warn Jesus that his life is in danger from Herod ( Luke 13:31 ), invite him for meals ( Luke 7:36-50 ; 14:1 ), are attracted to or believe in Jesus ( John 3:1 ;7:45-53 ; 9:13-38 ), and protect early Christians ( Acts 5:34 ; 23:6-9 ). Paul asserts he was a Pharisee before his conversion ( Php 3:5 ).

The clearest New Testament statement of Pharisaic distinctives is Acts 23:8: "The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection and that there are neither angels, nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all." This would give the impression that doctrine was the basic concern of the group. However, Mark 7:3-4 says that "The Pharisees do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles." Thus, we are also told of the Pharisees' concern for washing (ceremonial cleansing) and observance of "the traditions of the elders, " a description of the Oral Law.

Matthew 23 calls attention to their (1) positions of religious authority in the community, (2) concern for outward recognition and honor, (3) enthusiasm for making converts, and (4) emphasis on observing the legalistic minutia of the law. In verse 23 Jesus condemns them, not for what they did, but for neglecting "the more important matters of the law justice, mercy, and faithfulness."

How were the Pharisees Legalistic?
In many ways, the Pharisees were the worst people in the world. They were cold and legalistic. At the same time, the Pharisees were the best people in the whole country. They were the holy men who kept the law; they pursued purity with a passion and wanted nothing more than to live lives that pleased God. They were sincere, albeit sincerely misguided.

There were never any more than six thousand Pharisees in the country. They were known as the “chaburah,” or “the brotherhood.” They entered into this brotherhood by taking a pledge, in front of three witnesses, that they would spend all their lives observing every detail of the scribal law.

That was the problem! The scribes had created the Mishnah, the writings that codified scribal law. Then there was the Talmud, which is the commentary on the Mishnah. I have read of a Rabbi who spent nearly three years studying one chapter from the Mishnah.

A perfect illustration is seen in the simple Sabbath law. The Bible clearly told the Israelite, “Do not work, do not bear burdens, but rest and keep it a holy day.”

Well, work had to be defined; carrying burdens had to be defined. For example, one could

• get milk enough for one swallow, and
• carry a spoon weighing no more than one fig.

It was the scribes and Pharisees who were embroiled over the discussion as to whether or not, on the Sabbath, a woman could wear a brooch, a mother could pick up her child, or a man could wear his wooden leg. These were burdens."

Kenny'sID said:

How were the Pharisees Legalistic?

Click to expand...

You have shown some Pharisees on his side and we know some were against him. A paradox? Something to ignore? No... when we look into history we find out something that adds a TON of context to the NT that the church is widely unaware of....

There were 2 sects of Pharisees in the first century. One (Beit/house-school of Shammai) and Beit Hillel. The former was known to teach "the letter of the law." The latter, "the spirit of the law." In >>EVERY CASE<< but once, when Yeshua is rebuking Pharisees, he was rebuking those tied to Beit Shammai. He stood against those that taught the letter of the law.

Those who taught the letter were more inclined to hold a stricter interpretation and are those who would insist others lives according to their interpretations. That is the essence of legalism. That is where is evolved from.

Tone said:

People believe a lot of questionable things about Paul, but we also have to look at what Yahshua said.

Click to expand...

It's also important to keep transition from age to age in mind (luke 16:16)

Ken Rank said:

You have shown some Pharisees on his side and we know some were against him. A paradox? Something to ignore? No... when we look into history we find out something that adds a TON of context to the NT that the church is widely unaware of....

There were 2 sects of Pharisees in the first century. One (Beit/house-school of Shammai) and Beit Hillel. The former was known to teach "the letter of the law." The latter, "the spirit of the law." In >>EVERY CASE<< but once, when Yeshua is rebuking Pharisees, he was rebuking those tied to Beit Shammai. He stood against those that taught the letter of the law.

Those who taught the letter were more inclined to hold a stricter interpretation and are those who would insist others lives according to their interpretations. That is the essence of legalism. That is where is evolved from.

Click to expand...

The main point, it wasn't what OSASr's claim it to be.

mark kennedy said:

Sacrificing to Molech isn't legalism, it's licensiousness. It's strictly forbidden under Mosaic Law and according to the prophetic witness.

Click to expand...

Danielwright2311 said:

You just admitted to wanting to kill children, if I was you, I would seek help.

Click to expand...

I think OP's intention was to create a metaphor, though rather extreme. I highly doubt he actually is tempted to kill children.

By_This_Sign☧ said:

I think OP's intention was to create a metaphor, though rather extreme. I highly doubt he actually is tempted to kill children.

Click to expand...

And there are people every day who truly do fell like killing then they go out and shoot up schools and such, no warning should be left for the safety of children.

Danielwright2311 said:

And there are people every day who truly do fell like killing then they go out and shoot up schools and such, no warning should be left for the safety of children.

Click to expand...

This was not a warning. It was a metaphor for a common debate tactic used by his theological opponents. I'm sorry that you missed the "joke" (though personalty I find it a bit distasteful). Obviously OP doesn't worship Moloch as literal Moloch worship has been dead for millennia.