In a message dated 4/2/2005 8:56:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*Note Subject Change
was "Eternal Judgment" and now is "Legalism"
John defined legalism as:
>It is the imposition of their interpretations upon others
>and the elevation of their understanding to the status
>of Ex-Cathedra.
This is pretty much how I see you coming across all the time, John.
However, the rest of what you described applies very little to me, you, or
almost anybody else I know. There have been a few over the years, but I
don't tend to hang around people like that too long. None of what I wrote concerned itself with specific personalities. Let's stay away from that. I, of course, do not bind my view on others and do not make doctrinal belief a "test for fellowship."
I use the term legalism in the way that the dictionary defines it, which is
adherence to the letter of law, or a literal interpretation and adherence to
some law, rule, or religious code. You guys have a certain theological
system passed on to you from guys like Torrance and Wright, and you are very
strict not to depart from it. You haven't been reading our posts. It is actually your new found legalism that
makes it difficult interacting with those who are legalistic in regards to
the standards of Scripture. With your borad brush definition, this is true. With my cultural and practical definition, this is not the case. Like Bill said, however, most legalists do not
realize that they are legalists. Actually, they hate it when someone has enough freedom to point this out to them. They hate it. We are creatures of habit and tradition, and this is what makes us all tend to be legalistic in some way. David, I will continue with my definition. I am sixty years old this month and have given you a definition based on years of experience.
I keep in mind that passage that says that the letter of the law kills but
the spirit gives life. This tempers my tendency to be legalistic. I think
the absence of legalism would be sin, but I also think over emphasizing the
letter can be a sin as well. Remember that Jesus encouraged his disciples
to listen and learn from the legalists of his day, but he warned them of
their hypocrisy. He wanted us to do what the legalists said to do, but not
to follow their example of living. Much of what you say above is correct, even enlightening. Your mention of "hypocrisy" should have been included in my definition. All legalists, per my offering, are hypocites -- demanding a certain righteousness in the lives of others that does not exist in their own lives.
Too many times in this culture we hear warnings against legalism. This is
kind of like the hippy cry of the 1960's for freedom and liberty and free
love. Too often the battle cry against legalism is a justification for
anti-authoritarianism and anti-Biblical adherence. How about we talk about
this word legalism some more and see if we can decide if it is really all
that bad after all. David, thanks for the offer but I see no value in this for me. Really. Your definition is a good one, of course. But, it just does not catch the cultural aspect of the phenom we call "legalism" within the church. Sometime ago, I decided to fight legalism rather than suffer as a victim to it's rudeness and graceless activity. I will add, that not all "legalists" are hateful people. Not all are outside the circle of grace -- in fact, most are not. All have been reconciled.
As a starter for discussion, if legalism were carte blanche evil, then
shouldn't we just get rid of all laws? It seems to me that without laws and
rules, then it would be very difficult for anyone to be legalistic. What do
you think? The rules and laws of the New Covenant are there for personal consumption -- not for corporate defining or enforcement. The church is vital only as it serves to assist the individual in his/her pursuit of holiness. We don't need to rid ourselves of rules and laws -- what we need is fewer legalists !!!
David Miller.
Regarding the Indwelling:
Moving away from the personal to a theological theme� (what a concept !!),� I will make this assertion:�
In view of the obvious fact that Christ expected obedience to His word before the giving of the indwelling Spirit,� the Indwelling is not an offering from God for that purpose.�� Certainly we defeat sin and obey God by His power , but this is a gifted presence in all of us.��
And so I say that if "no man comes to the Son except the Father draw him,"� that God is at work in us all to accomplish His good pleasure (Phil. 2:12,13),� that obedience was expected by God from His people down through the ages (pre-Pentecost), the Indwelling accomplished other purposes than obedience.�
Regarding the definition of "legalist: or "legalism"
Regarding David Miller's thinking that all are legalists,� he says this with a differing definition from others� --�� certainly not my definition.� Legalism, to me, is the heart throb of Works Salvationists.�� It is the imposition of their interpretations upon others and the elevation of their understanding to the status of Ex-Cathedra.�� They are, at times,� fire breathing disrupters of the peace of the fellowship of the Saints and, when put on the spot, are rebellious to the working of God in the lives of us all.� They are exclusive (sectarian) in their determination of the Brotherhood and are not reasonable people.�� BUT , they remain brothers/sisters in the larger Family of God.� In the parable of the Prodigal,� they are represented by the one who stayed at home.�����
In counseling, we learn of such a thing as "flooding."�� This oocurs when emotions take over.�� The brain actually is incapable of reasoned thinking when experiencing "flooding."� This is why couples should discontinue discussion as soon as one or both get angry.� The legalist, as defined above, is flooded most of the time.�� He/she CANNOT think rationally because their belief is emotionally MAINTAINED.��� And "maintained" is an important word.�
Now, if David does not accept this definition, preferring to believe that "legalism" is a term that defines nothing in specific, fine.�� That use of the word (legalism) as mentioned in Miller's writing is not my definition..................not that mine is sacro-sainted.�� It is just my definition.�
