Skip to main content

Legalism: What It Is and What Isn't

This is an issue that I have been thinking more about in recent weeks, and even shared with my Elders last night. The term is thrown around alot by Christians who do not want to be legalistic. In my background as a Free Will Baptist, I was very close to being legalistic, if not outright legalistic in certain areas. The problem of legalism is associated closely with those of the "fundamentalist" movement. Being a fundamentalist used to be a good thing. This term is associated with those and the beginning of the 20th century who gathered together to systematically put toegther the fundamentals of the Christian faith based on the word of God. Those doctrines that must be rightly believed to evidence that someone is saved. But over the years many in the fundamentalist movement began treating "standards" (which are often wise and good) as commandments, that when/if violated, are considered sin. That is legalism!!! It is a form of aceticism, that certain things themselves are considered sin, instead of the abuse of them. Music and clothes would be good examples of that. So legalism is it applies to this topic is calling something sin, that the word of God does not call sin. But what about the opposite problem? I will deal with that in another post. Soli Deo Gloria.....Bret

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is such a common problem in my head as well. It's all too often that I try and convince the younger generations in the church to quit listening to secular music, quit being obsessed with clothes and such, and ultimately tell them they must do those things to become a "better" Christian. Fact is, giving up secular music and not putting such an emphasis on clothes and other material things can and usually will lead to spiritual growth and maturity. Legalistic thinking says that you MUST give up these things (which I often catch myself doing) while a more graceful way of thinking would say that they aren't the best things in the world to influence you, but they aren't going to send you to hell. A careful balance must be had here! If you can, elimination of these things altogether can only benefit your walk with the Lord. They won't send you to hell if you partake in them, but once again...influence can be negative.

Did that make sense, Bretbertimus?
Tue Jun 07, 02:19:00 PM CDT
Pester Brat said…
Makes mucho sense my young padewan.
Muhahahahahahahahaha...Bret
Tue Jun 07, 02:48:00 PM CDT
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

So Many Religions...Is That True?

That's the way the world looks at it. Many religions and many paths to God, most people think. But is that true? I mean, look at what we got: Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, and more. Which one is right? Now bear with me before jumping the gun about me lumping in Protestants and Baptists with that group. How do we respond and deal with so many religions? Is there really that many? I say no! Because when it really comes down to it, there are only 2 kinds of religions...Works and Grace, Self and Christ. The works/self way leads to condemnation, the Christ/Grace way leads to eternal life in heaven. There may be many founders behind all those religions, but the one thing they all have in common is the false belief that works completely or partly saves them. It doesn't matter what name is behind it (including Christian), if they believe that sacraments, ordinances, charitable deeds, or good works helps get t...
13 comments
Read more

Issues I Have Been Associated With Recently

The King James Only Controversy : I have been in 3 churches since the Lord was pleased to save me, the last 2 of them as a pastor. The first church was when I was not a pastor, but did teach Sunday School, and preached occasionally. It was a church that used the KJV of the bible, but neither I or the pastor was hardcore KJV Only. The second church was the first church I pastored. For the sake of some long time members in that small church, I used the King James version for sermons, but after I was there a year or two, I began using the NKJV for Scripture Readings. My third church, which is the one I'm pastoring now in Idaho, does not use the KJV. We offically use the NASB for our sermons, and the ESV many times when quoting other scriptures. I know some of my long time Christian friends from Maryland are KJV Only. I am not. I think it is an issue that we can agree to disagree on, but it seems there may be some that cannot. In the not so distant future, I'll post on the Blog why...
12 comments
Read more

Are Arminian Baptists Legitimate Biblical Churches?

With all the discussion going on about whether Presbyterians are biblical churches because of infant baptism, I would like to ask if we believe that Arminian Baptist churches are legitimate churches? If a Baptist Church, regardless of their affiliation if any, believes in a universal, insufficient atonement by Christ, issuch Baptist Church really a biblical church? And if so, how can we say that it is when it involves the very heart of the gospel in the atonement. Further, how can we say that those Presbyterian churches that believe in a particular, sufficient atonement yet infant baptism are not biblical, yet those that believe in a universal, insufficient atonement yet believers baptism by immersion are biblical churches. Inquiring mind wants to know ;- ). Thanks..... P.S. Still Baptist and thank the Lord for it!
12 comments
Read more