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.
John, do you consider the interpretation that salvation comes only through
Jesus Christ to be something that we should be legalistic about? Should we
impose this view upon others in this world or not?
Hi David. Two things -- how are doing on that syllogism. And, I hope this question is not about "my definition of legalism verses yours." If that is where we are going, I am not interested. To answer the question in a word, "no." Imposition is not how the salvation message is done, IMO.
John wrote:
>We don't need to rid ourselves of rules and laws
>-- what we need is fewer legalists !!!
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that we need rules and laws but
that we should not have anyone who imposes these rules and laws upon others?
You are catching on fast. You, David Miller, have no charge over my life in a salvation sense. And visa versa. If that were not true, Paul would have never written passages like Romans 14:4.
Do you consider Judges and our Judiciary to be legalists? Should they be?
There is no mercy in a legalistic culture, whether judical or otherwise. Societal considerations and parallels have no place in this discussion, IMO.
I would love to hear others on this list answer these questions. Apparently
some here hate the idea of legalism and consider it something that is wrong.
I do not hate legalism. My view is that legalism should be tempered with
love and mercy. If you think legalism is bad, please contribute to this
discussion.
Again, David, you are insisting on your broad brush definition of "legalism." If we are all legalist, none of us are. I am answering your question with my view of legalism ------------------------ in that definition it is a wickedness of the highest order for it divides the Body of Christ and recants His last wishes for unity. It is a dis - grace.
As a sidebar, let me say that I have often considered the idea of a utopia
as being a society with absolutely no rules or laws at all. If everyone
would walk in love, I don't think we would necessarily need laws. The
problem is that if there is anybody who does not walk in love (if there is
anyone who sins), then we need to define the boundaries through rules and
laws. So while I don't reject legalism out of hand as something evil, I
tend to like the idea of a society where legalism could not exist because of
the absence of laws, but only if everyone in that society walked in love and
did not sin. There is much in this statement that I agree with, personally.
David Miller.
