Christian Liberty

[Frisbee]

Legalism in it's proper context speaks to our freedom from the 613 mitzvot, not a pejorative light to be cast on the struggle that all Christians have varying aspects of personal morality.

I say personal morality because for me at least, the answer is no alcohol. I understand fully that the bible doesn't condemn the responsible use of wine medicinally and for celebration. Some folks can drink, others can not. I am in the latter category.

A person who is being legalistic is a person who believes that they must be circumcised and keep the law (specifically the 613 mitzvot), and I pray that the difference is understood. There are many things that aren't specifically addressed by name in the bible such as smoking marijuana, but we know that it is wrong because it is illegal for starters. We don't need to have it spelled out in order to formulate a do and don't list. Our conduct simply needs to be in line with our walk WITH God. You can't walk with Him if you're walking in the flesh, and to many of us walking in the flesh means putting off old life styles that are self destructive and a bad witness for our Lord Jesus Christ.

If folks can have a glass of wine I say great! My challenge to you then is to invite your Pastor over for dinner and serve wine. My belief is that if it is indeed okay, then you should feel just as comfortable in that setting as anything done in private. There are of course things that are fine that you wouldn't do in front of your Pastor such as a married couple having sex, but common sense and our personal sense of decency tells us this.

 

[Nadiine]

Legalism in it's proper context speaks to our freedom from the 613 mitzvot, not a pejorative light to be cast on the struggle that all Christians have varying aspects of personal morality.

I say personal morality because for me at least, the answer is no alcohol. I understand fully that the bible doesn't condemn the responsible use of wine medicinally and for celebration. Some folks can drink, others can not. I am in the latter category.

A person who is being legalistic is a person who believes that they must be circumcised and keep the law (specifically the 613 mitzvot), and I pray that the difference is understood. There are many things that aren't specifically addressed by name in the bible such as smoking marijuana, but we know that it is wrong because it is illegal for starters. We don't need to have it spelled out in order to formulate a do and don't list. Our conduct simply needs to be in line with our walk WITH God. You can't walk with Him if you're walking in the flesh, and to many of us walking in the flesh means putting off old life styles that are self destructive and a bad witness for our Lord Jesus Christ.

If folks can have a glass of wine I say great! My challenge to you then is to invite your Pastor over for dinner and serve wine. My belief is that if it is indeed okay, then you should feel just as comfortable in that setting as anything done in private. There are of course things that are fine that you wouldn't do in front of your Pastor such as a married couple having sex, but common sense and our personal sense of decency tells us this.

Well the issue for those who consider it sin to have alcohol of any kind (due to the Biblical wine not being alcoholic - unfermented), is the temptation or falling into drunkeness when having it.

I wish I remembered the verse Dr. Hocking gave on the radio when I heard his sermon in my car last week. He gave a verse that said not to drink strong drink, not to even look at it type of message.
He used that as the sprinboard to the problems that come with alcohol & how many it's turned into alcoholics etc.
I personally do drink some beer and don't have a problem with it in moderation, but I do see the point of those who believe the Bible wine wasn't fermented but was grape juice.
I'll try to find the verse tomorrow.

But I don't consider him a "legalist" becuz he's against it for himself and others - due to his information based on scripture. What if he really is right about that?
I try to stay open minded to both sides of the issue.

 

[Frisbee]

You're right Nadiine!

I'm going to have just a glass of wine tonight with my dinner

I'm kidding of course, but you do have to be careful with some people. You never know who is dangerously close to the edge and might walk across the line with even the slightest bit of perceived encouragement.

I went to a Seder lead by a Messianic Jew last night and in it they drink 4 glasses of wine. Myself and most of the others had grape juice, and the one drinking wine poured hot water in it to remind him of the blood of Christ it represents. He did tell us of a story where strong Jewish wine (just for the occasion) was served once, and said it was way too much wine to accompany something meant to honor our Lord.

Everyone is different, but none of us can speak for another person in matters of personal morality. It's very personal, and something that all of us need to find our way in.

My general rule of thumb is to ask myself if I would do it in front of Jesus. Would He be pleased, not pleased or indifferent? I think with most people He would be indifferent with the wine to be honest. He knows me and I'm certain He would say that I shouldn't. Since I don't want to anyhow, it works out just fine

 

[IisJustMe]

Just contributing my thoughts here, and much of what I say has already been said. But the fellowship and agreement in this thread is too good to resist.

Paul said, "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery." (Galatians 5:1) Christ set us free to experience true freedom. Christian freedom is freedom of conscience, freedom from a legal system that couldn't be kept. It is freedom from the depressing awareness that we can't measure up to God. Christians do measure up in Christ. We have been given grace that is "freely bestowed on us in the Beloved." (Ephesians 1:6)

The Galatians Christians had been adopted as sons of God, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and freed from external ceremonial law. They were free in the Spirit to act out their own maturity and liberty from within. That was Paul's theme. Christianity is not slavery to a religious system. It is absolute freedom. Through Jesus Christ we have been delivered from the tiring, relentless performance of religious ritual and from the continual measure of our behavior against the Law given Moses.

Christian liberty is being free from having to fulfill the legal code to please God, and free from the frustration of not being able to keep an external set of rules. In a positive sense, it is the freedom to function by the internal working of the Spirit. Because Christian liberty begins with faith in Jesus Christ, Paul tells the Galatians not to put their faith in circumcision or any other type of ceremonialism. According to Galatians 4:10, they had regressed from their freedom to observing "days, and months, and seasons, and years." For that reason Paul said, "I am fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain" (4:11). They were trying to accept Jewish rituals that no longer had any value.

Here is an illustration, used by John McArthur, of how Christianity relates to the extremes of legalism and libertinism, i.e., believing God's grace covers deliberate and persistent sin committed in the knowledge of what it is, without repentance.

Christianity resembles a narrow bridge spanning a place where two streams come together. One of those streams is crystal clear, but contains treacherous and deadly rapids; it symbolizes legalism -- it appears to be a source of righteousness, but you can't stay afloat in it. Legalism will smash you on its rocks.

The other stream is polluted libertinism-- if you fall into it, you will drown because of its filth. Therefore, the Christian must maintain his balance on the bridge between the treachery of legalism and the filth of libertinism. Christians who have fallen into the rapids of legalism destroy the effectiveness of their spiritual lives. Those who are wallowing in the vices of libertinism put themselves in line for divine discipline. Galatians 5:13-16 tell us how to stay on the bridge.

Since we are no longer under the bondage of a ceremonial system, there is no reason to get circumcised or to observe feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths. There are some people today who want all kinds of rituals. But there is no need for that. However, just because the ceremonial law is set aside does not mean that we change our morality. It doesn't mean that what God held as true in the Old Testament fades away with the coming of the New Testament. There is no change in the content of God's moral law, only a change in the way God brings about the fulfillment of it: from the external requirement of ceremonial law to the internal leading of the Holy Spirit.

Christian freedom is not an opportunity to indulge the flesh. The flesh in New Testament thought is our fallen human nature, the part of us that is prone to sin. It is "the old man" (Col. 3:9). A Christian wasn't set free in Christ to do whatever he wants. Some people wrongly think that because of the eternal security of the believer, they are free to do anything they want. No. Christian liberty is not liberty to indulge the flesh. If you're saved, you won't indulge your flesh because of the sin-restraining presence of the Holy Spirit inside you.

Galatians 5:13 says we are not to turn our "freedom into an opportunity for the flesh." The word translated "opportunity" -- the Greek aphorme -- is a military term referring to a base of operations. Don't make your flesh the base of your operation. Don't say, "I'm a Christian who's going to go to heaven; therefore I can do what I want to do." You are not free to use your liberty as a springboard for the flesh. Paul denied the Judaizers' claim that he was teaching libertinism.

There are Christians on the borderline of believing the heresy that they can sin and get away with it without being condemned. They think they have the privilege of doing whatever they want and would say you can indulge in such things as booze, sex, or pornography by appealing to Christian liberty. No. It's very clear that Christian liberty is not to be used as an occasion for the flesh. In fact, I would seriously doubt the salvation of anyone who believes otherwise because if they are saved, the Spirit will be restraining their sinful desires. Romans 8:9-11 tells us that one of the works of the Holy Spirit is to subdue the flesh.​

 

[mont974x4]

My rights end where yours begin.

In other words (using alcohol as an example) I am free to have an occassional beer, but I should not drink around people who have an issue with as I don't want to be, or create, a stumbling block. Likewise, they are not free to demand that I never drink.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Well, I disagree that being "legalistic" is confined or limited to "circumcision" and other "religious" laws. Legalistic could be for instance, since you, knowing your weakness, cannot have alcohol, if you were to then say that no Christian can have alcohol, because for you it would be a sin, that would then be legalistic as the Bible does not forbid partaking of any alcohol, it forbids having it in excess.

As far as your challenge goes, if I by culture drank a glass of wine with my dinner, which I don't, but if I did, the same that I applied earlier to a Jewish friend and how they feel about pork would apply in the Pastor's case that I had over for dinner. If I by culture, had a glass of wine with my dinner, if he thought it would be a sin, then to do it in front of him, or offer him some, would not be right, as it would cause another to stumble or to become offended. No different than if an unbeliever were in my home and they believed Christians were forbidden to have any wine at all, OR to partake in the presence of a recovered alcoholic or one who struggles.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should in all circumstances.

Wisdom and discernment is to be exercized.

Scripture forbids drunkenness. i.e., the drinking of alcohol in excess (Eph. 5:18)

The same word for wine used by John at the wedding at Cana for instance, (John 2:1-11) is used in Genesis when describing the substance on which Noah became drunk. (Genesis 9:24)

Also in Genesis in the preceding verses; Genesis 9:20-21 "And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent."

It's the same word. Therefore, for some to preach that Jesus made grape juice, is simply not true. Besides that, common sense would have to be engaged regarding the Master of Ceremonies' comment that most hosts give out the good wine first and when the guests have drank well, they bring out the cheaper wine (because people wouldn't notice) but you have saved the best for last.

Unless both wines had alcohol content, that statement would make absolutely no sense.

Sober people would notice the difference when a cheaper grade grape juice was brought out after having a few glasses of the good grape juice.


For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby your brother stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak. Romans 14:20-21

Legalism in it's proper context speaks to our freedom from the 613 mitzvot, not a pejorative light to be cast on the struggle that all Christians have varying aspects of personal morality.

I say personal morality because for me at least, the answer is no alcohol. I understand fully that the bible doesn't condemn the responsible use of wine medicinally and for celebration. Some folks can drink, others can not. I am in the latter category.

A person who is being legalistic is a person who believes that they must be circumcised and keep the law (specifically the 613 mitzvot), and I pray that the difference is understood. There are many things that aren't specifically addressed by name in the bible such as smoking marijuana, but we know that it is wrong because it is illegal for starters. We don't need to have it spelled out in order to formulate a do and don't list. Our conduct simply needs to be in line with our walk WITH God. You can't walk with Him if you're walking in the flesh, and to many of us walking in the flesh means putting off old life styles that are self destructive and a bad witness for our Lord Jesus Christ.

If folks can have a glass of wine I say great! My challenge to you then is to invite your Pastor over for dinner and serve wine. My belief is that if it is indeed okay, then you should feel just as comfortable in that setting as anything done in private. There are of course things that are fine that you wouldn't do in front of your Pastor such as a married couple having sex, but common sense and our personal sense of decency tells us this.

 

[Frisbee]

IisJustMe, that was fantastic!!!

I think in light of that it is a good time to say...

Romans 8

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

 

[Frisbee]

IAmRedeemed I kind of agree, but I think that it is important to fully grasp what Paul is talking about when he talks about being free from the law. We all have a tendency to make this mean "no" to vices (e.g. smoking cigars), when Paul was specifically addressing Jewish law. It was a problem in the early church (Judaisers), and his crusade so to speak was against putting oneself back under the law, (the 612 mitzvot), not morality checklists.

I know that you weren't saying that, but I wanted to just be clearer about that distinction. I am an alcoholic. That means I can't drink. This has nothing to do with legalism, and everything to do with me working out my walk with God on a very personal level. My mother drinks wine with her meals and doesn't get drunk. She hates the feeling of drunkeness. For her, wine is fine. It never will be for me though.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Hi there Frisbee,

Yes, I understand what Paul was saying, and I am not talking about that Scripture. I was speaking about your statement which seemed to say that the definition of legalism was limited to those things to which Paul referred, when you said this:

<<< A person who is being legalistic is a person who believes that they must be circumcised and keep the law>>>

And it was that statement I disagreed with. On the other, I think you might have misunderstood me.
I know that you say no to yourself, and you are speaking only for yourself and not for legalistic reasons.
I didn't mean to imply that you were being legalistic. My example was saying that IF because it is a "no no" for you for the reasons you stated, that you decided it was to be "law" for everyone else, then THAT would be and example of legalism.

But I know that you said no such thing and even stated otherwise.
I was just using a hypothetical circumstance as an example.

God bless brother.

IAmRedeemed I kind of agree, but I think that it is important to fully grasp what Paul is talking about when he talks about being free from the law. We all have a tendency to make this mean "no" to vices (e.g. smoking cigars), when Paul was specifically addressing Jewish law. It was a problem in the early church (Judaisers), and his crusade so to speak was against putting oneself back under the law, (the 612 mitzvot), not morality checklists.

I know that you weren't saying that, but I wanted to just be clearer about that distinction. I am an alcoholic. That means I can't drink. This has nothing to do with legalism, and everything to do with me working out my walk with God on a very personal level. My mother drinks wine with her meals and doesn't get drunk. She hates the feeling of drunkeness. For her, wine is fine. It never will be for me though.

 

[Frisbee]

I still don't think that's legalism. But before I go any further let us understand that the word legalism is not in the bible. It is a concept that can be found in the bible, but the word itself is not actually in it. That being said, we need to understand that as we speak bout this extra-biblical word and bibilical concept, that our opinions of this are what we are indeed talking about.

The reason I'm pretty narrow in my personal definition of legalism is that Paul struggled a lot with movements in various churches where an attempt to revert to the law (the 613 mitzvot) were repeatedly a problem. SO much so that I believe that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was this issue or mental aguish (torment), and not a physical source of torment.

The Jerusalem Council had to write a letter to the church at Galatia in particular to address this issue, as Jews were arguing that Gentiles who became followers of The Way be circumsized and follow the law. What was going on was that some were simply adding Jesus to Judaism, instead of the gospel that Paul was preaching.

In Galatians Paul opens the letter by addressing this in verse 8 of chapter 1...

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

We know from reading the rest of the letter to the churches of Galatia, that Paul was specifically referencing the Judaizing of Gentile churches.

The reason I am such a stickler on making that point so clear is that I believe that too many Christians hold to a loose and false rendition of what this concept means as they wave off things they don't wish to deal with by simply labeling it "legalism". Especially the call for Christians to shine the light and love of God and the fruit of the Spirit through good works. Works can't save you, but are demonstrable proofs of the saving grace living inside you. As James points out, faith without works is a sign of a dead faith...

James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

Everything else is and are personal matters of learning how to walk in the Spirit. When I see things like churches leaning on folks to wear certain clothes for example, I see an extremely immature and shallow church which seeks to control those who attend it. I don't see it as legalistic, but as immature.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Well you can rest assured that I am not "one of those". As you might gather from my
statement in post #7 of this thread which was:

<<<We are free from many "religious laws" but we are not free to exercise iniquity.
Any who believe that we are "because we are under grace and not the law."
'hath deceived themselves'.>>>

We are called to a standard. As ambassadors of Christ.

I do disagree though that it is not legalism to force ones personal convictions
onto other people if the Word does not support enforcing it. That is called subjecting
people to bondage, turning things that are not Biblically supported into "Church law"
and forcing people to keep those "laws". ie., women only allowed to wear dresses,
must wear scarf or hat, must remove shoes, must stand when the the Word of God
is being read from the pulpit etc., etc.

There are things in the Word that are SIN no matter who believes it is, or who refuses to
acknowledge it. It is still sin and they cannot do or say anything to make it not so and
then there are things that the Word refers to, where we may have a personal conviction
about and the Word says to the one who has that conviction, for him such IS SIN, but not
all is bound to that person's personal conviction.


Paul's thorn in the flesh by the way, was physical. He had a nasty reoccurring eye
infection and it repulsed people.

I still don't think that's legalism. But before I go any further let us understand that the word legalism is not in the bible. It is a concept that can be found in the bible, but the word itself is not actually in it. That being said, we need to understand that as we speak bout this extra-biblical word and bibilical concept, that our opinions of this are what we are indeed talking about.

The reason I'm pretty narrow in my personal definition of legalism is that Paul struggled a lot with movements in various churches where an attempt to revert to the law (the 613 mitzvot) were repeatedly a problem. SO much so that I believe that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was this issue or mental aguish (torment), and not a physical source of torment.

The Jerusalem Council had to write a letter to the church at Galatia in particular to address this issue, as Jews were arguing that Gentiles who became followers of The Way be circumsized and follow the law. What was going on was that some were simply adding Jesus to Judaism, instead of the gospel that Paul was preaching.

In Galatians Paul opens the letter by addressing this in verse 8 of chapter 1...



We know from reading the rest of the letter to the churches of Galatia, that Paul was specifically referencing the Judaizing of Gentile churches.

The reason I am such a stickler on making that point so clear is that I believe that too many Christians hold to a loose and false rendition of what this concept means as they wave off things they don't wish to deal with by simply labeling it "legalism". Especially the call for Christians to shine the light and love of God and the fruit of the Spirit through good works. Works can't save you, but are demonstrable proofs of the saving grace living inside you. As James points out, faith without works is a sign of a dead faith...

James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

Everything else is and are personal matters of learning how to walk in the Spirit. When I see things like churches leaning on folks to wear certain clothes for example, I see an extremely immature and shallow church which seeks to control those who attend it. I don't see it as legalistic, but as immature.

 

[Frisbee]

I've heard that about Paul's eye, but there were two things that haunted him... one physical and one of an emotional nature. I'm guessing that Paul was bothered much more by the spiritual issue than the medical problem. Of course I can be wrong, it is just my opinion.

Talking about "Church law". I went to a church a couple of years ago that I ended up leaving because I couldn't handle some of the financial dealings I was witnessing (nepotism at it's worst), and found out that after I left that they were invoking church discipline on the men of the church whose wives wore blue jeans. Ever. I'm not talking about wearing them to church, I'm talking about if their wives wore blue jeans period!

 

[IisJustMe]

I believe that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was this issue or mental aguish (torment), and not a physical source of torment.

Paul's thorn in the flesh by the way, was physical. He had a nasty reoccurring eye infection and it repulsed people.

This isn't the proper thread for this, but very quickly, there is another idea.

Paul is said to have been a member of the Sanhedrin, identified as such in Josephus' writings. One irony here: Council members had to be married. Obviously we are never told whether Saul/Paul was married or not, but it appears he was. Where was she, in Luke's writings and his own, then?

Paul studied under Gamaliel, a highly respected and historically noteworthy rabbi. It was he who told the council, in fact, to take no action against John and Peter, saying that if they were not of God they would quickly pass into obscurity, but if they were from God, nothing the council could do would stop their message. This was a prestigious position for Paul, one that would have marked him as man of learning, power and principle. He would have had access to the movers and shakers of Jerusalem and his own father, a merchant or businesman from Tarsus, was obviously well off to have moved his family from the Greek city to Jerusalem in order to provide for Saul/Paul's education.

Paul would have married (if he did) into a well-known and prestigious family, a family of solid Jewish genealogy. He would have set about making a name for himself by his very pursuit of adherents to The Way. In that pursuit, he was converted from heretic to apostle on the road to Damascus.

Now, picture his "recovery" from that experience, his lengthy stay in Damascus before preaching his salvation in public and returning to Jerusalem, not to learn more from Gamaliel, but to submit himself to instruction at the feet of a couple poor fishermen who had traveled and studied with a carpenter whom His followers claimed rose from the dead. How would that play with his wife and her family? With his own family, for that matter, a family who sacrificed familiarity and certain continued prosperity in Tarsus for an uncertain future in Jerusalem, where Saul/Paul would have no assurance of being smart enough or able enough to catch on with a great rabbi like Gamaliel? How would that family react to Saul/Paul's rejection of the "truth" in which he had been schooled, in favor of the real truth he had previously dedicated himself to eradicating?

I'm not saying this definitively, but it is quite likely Paul's "thorn in he flesh" was that family and that of his wife. Paul, in the II Corinthians 12:7-10 passage in which he attests to being given this "thorn in the flesh," asks for relief from persecution, not physical pain. Certainly Paul was persecuted on and from every side, but who would more likely persecute, vilify and condemn him than the wife who refused to let him back into her house because of his adoption of an unlawful belief? How great would that pain be, for a man to be cast aside by a woman he ostensibly loved and married with the purpose of spending his life with her, to be rejected by her when he unexpectedly changed his perspective, his mission and his teaching?

Paul was not one to share his daily pain with others, except as it served his purpose in spreading the gospel. So he wrote nothing of his personal loss, if that's what it was. He didn't feel the need to abrade his emotions with a reliving and retelling of the tale to those who could do nothing but sympathize. Perhaps Luke and Timothy and Titus knew. But there was no reason for him to share with the general population who heard his preaching. It served no purpose to further embarrass his wife and her family, as well as his, by holding them up to ridicule by followers of Christ. I don't think the thorn was physical, and I don't think it was the burden of sin he allegedly bore as the result of his persecution of the Way. He often said he was forgiven of all things, so that burden was no longer his. I believe it was the wife who rejected and refused him when he became a Christian.

But it is nothing more than fanciful speculation, either. Not much evidence there.

 

[Frisbee]

But you know what is so beautiful about this IisJustMe?

Because we don't know for certain, we have nothing else we can do other than study about al of these aspects of what it meant when the Lord told Saul on the road to Damascus...

"For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake."

That was a wonderful post though, and it certainly is worthy to ponder as we all try to understand what this may have been!