Terry wrote: > Legalism, in my book, is the unending list of rules > laid down by men who claim to speak for Christ. > Examples would be that one must wear a suit and > tie to "Worship services", or women must wear > dresses and not pants suits. Other examples would > be that only church members may take communion, > only the pastor can speak during the sermon, only > the pastor can baptize a new convert, that the deacons > rule the church, that communion must be from a shared > cup, that whites worship in white churches and blacks > worship in black churches, that the Sunday school teacher > must teach from the approved Sunday school teachers > book, and on and on. You get the idea I am certain. > Big difference between obedience and legalism, but > apparently only if you use my dictionary.
I hear you, Terry, but a person can be "legalistic" with the examples you mention above too. For example, someone might be legalistic and say that one must allow the use of both leavened and unleavened bread. This was actually one of the issues that split the Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox. I know a man who thinks I commit spiritual fornication everytime I step foot in a denominational church. He is legalistic about the idea that the church cannot be incorporated and that churches should not insist on various rules like those you have outlined above. I know of another man through email by the name of William Raymond of the church of Salem who is so insistent that he not incorporate the church that when his church was seized a few weeks ago and he was arrested, he fasted without food and water for 9 days. After speaking about his eminent death for 9 days, he started drinking water again but is still on a food fast. I would say that he is legalistic about not be entangled with legalism! :-) It simply seems to me that those who run away from legalism and denounce it completely always run into legalism again but in a different form. In other words, they are deceived when they think they are escaping legalism. When Jesus dealt with the legalism of the Pharisees, I find it interesting that he never denounced their legalism. Consider the following passage: Luke 11:42 (42) But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Isn't it striking that Jesus did not say: "The law says nothing about tithing mint and rue and herbs! You should not be so legalistic about that which God has not commanded in the law." Instead, Jesus tells them what they omitted in their legalism (judgment and love), and actually encourages them to keep at their legalism by saying, "not leave the other undone." Much more I can say, but I will stop here. Does any of what I say here make any sense to you at all? Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
