# Define Legalism Please



## Amazing Grace (Feb 28, 2010)

I am involved in a recent study on what constitutes legalism or pharisitical behavior. I know the charge of labeling one a legalist is the harshest accusation in some corners. When some here are accused of being legalists, I agree in some cases and disagree in others. But it may be because I have a faulty definition of the term. Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that Legalism, as understood by me, is definitely more than a works salvation. I know of no one who espouses salvation by works. Yet where I get confused is when one believes in salvation by Grace, and kept by works. What is the correct understanding of obedience vs legalism? Nomism, moralism, Law Sanctification are all lumped into one category by me and I am struggling in having a correct understanding. Anything that smacks of a Law-based code of conduct, or performance orientation is labeled legalism by me. 

What say ye please?


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 28, 2010)

"Legalism" is:

1) adding man made teachings to God's laws and trying to bind men's consciences with them
2) trusting in one's own obedience as a basis for righteousness and salvation
3) outward obedience alone without right inward motive (a heart to obey and please God)


----------



## KMK (Feb 28, 2010)

I agree but just add that number 2 is the motivation behind 1 and 3. The desire to manufacture our own righteousness is the wicked root that brings forth the wicked fruit of tradition and vanity.


----------



## jayce475 (Feb 28, 2010)

The issue is usually that many Christians who are preaching holiness and biblical separation are accused by others of "adding man made teachings to God's laws and trying to bind men's consciences with them" even though they are preaching about the manifestation of the outward obedience due to the right inward motives and not the least bit invoking obedience as one's basis for salvation. And this accusation will never end, because our sinful hearts always want to draw us from God's holiness.


----------



## Jack K (Feb 28, 2010)

I'll try...

Legalism is: "A heart that tries to impress God rather than one impressed by Him."


----------



## MW (Feb 28, 2010)

Jesus Christ is the Perfect Example for the Christian. Christ was obedient to His Father and knew the sweetness of being assured of His Father's love on the evidence of His obedience. At the same time, Christ separated Himself from the legalists of His day so that He cannot in any sense be numbered with them. Hence it cannot be legalism in and of itself to seek to be obedient to God or to derive a certain kind of assurance from that obedience. There must be some other factor which perverts the Christian's obedience and assurance so as to render him legalistic. And that other factor is nothing other than the deceitfulness of that indwelling sin which remains in the Christian. But herein lies the rub -- to accuse another Christian of legalism on the basis of the remnants of sin abiding in him is to accuse oneself of being a legalist even in one's attempt to avoid legalism. Afterall, is not your attempt to avoid legalism an expression of your desire to be obedient to God? and when you have assured yourself that you are not a legalist have you not derived that assurance from the fact that you have obeyed God's call to turn from legalism? and when you stand as the accuser of another's legalism are you not in reality boasting over your own abstinence from this sin and obedience to God? And right at that point the apostle's words apply as equally to you as to any self-righteous man: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things" (Romans 2:1).

May God be merciful to me, a self-righteous, self-condemned, legalistic sinner!


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 28, 2010)

There's nothing like a parable to communicate an otherwise difficult concept. Key words in bold:



> Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
> 
> Luke 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
> 
> ...


----------



## Guido's Brother (Mar 1, 2010)

Legalism -- What It Is and What It Is Not


----------



## buggy (Mar 1, 2010)

Legalism would consists of:
- Attempting to please God by one's own good works - whether for justification or sanctification (and obviously glorification). It means, instead of trusting in the work of Christ alone, the grace of God alone, I please God out of a heart to score "brownie points" before him. A legalistic heart would then seek to relegate the Christian life to just a few matters of their life. Both antinomians and hyper-fundamentalists are guilty of this. One separate "church life" from "secular life" while the other believes that stuff like soulwinning, conservative dress/music, etc. will cover more serious matters (e.g. loving others as oneself, loving the brethren). 

Legalism is not: 
- Attempting to obey the Word of God in one's Christian life. Different believers have different convictions based on their readings of Scripture. One thing must be noticed - the Christian who enjoys more liberties must spare a thought for others (esp. a Christian brother/sister) and respectfully restrain his/her liberties when the situation demands, lest he offends the other party. The Christian who has a stricter conviction about something should explain why he believes, and not condemn other believers for being in error or for not sharing their convictions, in matters where the Word of God is silent.


----------



## Curt (Mar 1, 2010)

Guido's Brother said:


> Legalism -- What It Is and What It Is Not


 
Amen. It's the opposite of antinomianism. Neither extreme is to be sought or desired. Both exist in churches today and as we seek to worship God acceptably we should be ridding ourselves (individually and corporately) of these excesses.


----------



## Curt (Mar 1, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Curt said:
> 
> 
> > It's the opposite of antinomianism.
> ...


 
Reasonably stated. That is not the way the terms are usually used, but I accept your usage.


----------



## KMK (Mar 1, 2010)

Guido's Brother said:


> Legalism -- What It Is and What It Is Not


 
Good stuff, Pastor Bredenhof. I think you nailed the definition of the word as it is used pejoratively.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 1, 2010)

This thread contains some really, really excellent stuff.

I just preached a sermon yesterday on Jer.7:1-15, _The Failure of Ritual_, that deals with the contrary extreme from legalism--ritualism. BOTH are forms of antinomianism, as Joshua already ably pointed out.

I will just add that posts two and three get right to the heart of the question, right away.


----------



## KMK (Mar 1, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> This thread contains some really, really excellent stuff.
> 
> I just preached a sermon yesterday on Jer.7:1-15, _The Failure of Ritual_, that deals with the contrary extreme from legalism--ritualism. BOTH are forms of antinomianism, as Joshua already ably pointed out.
> 
> I will just add that posts two and three get right to the heart of the question, right away.


 
Where can one go to hear said sermon, Rev Buchanan?


----------



## Nebrexan (Mar 1, 2010)

_Legalism is when we build fences to keep ourselves from committing certain sins. Soon these fences -- instead of the sins they were designed to guard against -- become the issue._ (Jerry Bridges)


----------



## ValiantforTruth (Mar 1, 2010)

*Definition of legalism.*

I thought about this for a long time a few years ago. I ended up with five attitudes that I believe can be called legalism:

1) Obedience to the law is some part of the basis of justification. (Rom. 3:20)
2) There are moral requirements not prescribed in Scripture. (James 4:11)
3) The law can make us holy. (Rom. 8:3)
4) We have the power in ourselves to obey the law (Phil. 2:13)
5) We can ignore the spirit of the law as long as we obey the letter of the law. (Matt. 23:23)

I have wondered if these can somehow be unified into one principle, although I have not figured out how without generalizing them into oblivion.


----------



## jayce475 (Mar 1, 2010)

ValiantforTruth said:


> I thought about this for a long time a few years ago. I ended up with five attitudes that I believe can be called legalism:
> 
> 1) Obedience to the law is some part of the basis of justification. (Rom. 3:20)
> 2) There are moral requirements not prescribed in Scripture. (James 4:11)
> ...


 
I agree with points 1,4 and 5. But the contexts of Romans 8 and James 4 make me doubt points 2 and 3. The law does have a role to play in making us holy, but it could not do so by itself. Also, is the speaking of evil in James 4 really about talking about extra-biblical moral requirements? It seems to be talking about outright slandering.


----------



## Christopher88 (Mar 1, 2010)

Man made rules that are not found in the bible. 

IE a former college I went to frowned upon men under 23 having beards. It was a big no no. I looked like a baby with out my facial hair, now I have one sported all the time. I'm growing a full beard right now.


----------



## jayce475 (Mar 1, 2010)

Sonny said:


> Man made rules that are not found in the bible.
> 
> IE a former college I went to frowned upon men under 23 having beards. It was a big no no. I looked like a baby with out my facial hair, now I have one sported all the time. I'm growing a full beard right now.


 
And what was their "biblical rationale" for that?


----------



## py3ak (Mar 1, 2010)

Jason, what role do you think the law plays in making us holy?

As to James 4, it might have been clearer if v.12 had also been listed, but I think the reference wasn't so much to evil speaking, as to making yourself a judge. But in support of that point number 2, I would point to the sufficiency of Scripture. If the Scripture can thoroughly furnish the man of God to every good work, surely there is no moral duty which is not derivable from Scripture - or Scripture wouldn't be equipping you for _every_ good work.


----------



## jayce475 (Mar 1, 2010)

py3ak said:


> Jason, what role do you think the law plays in making us holy?
> 
> As to James 4, it might have been clearer if v.12 had also been listed, but I think the reference wasn't so much to evil speaking, as to making yourself a judge. But in support of that point number 2, I would point to the sufficiency of Scripture. If the Scripture can thoroughly furnish the man of God to every good work, surely there is no moral duty which is not derivable from Scripture - or Scripture wouldn't be equipping you for _every_ good work.


 
Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 

The law is necessary in the sanctification of a believer, and I'm sure all of us would affirm this. So was just thinking that point 2 needs to be tightened up so as not to exclude the role of the law in sanctification, though it is certainly not all that is necessary. I just don't think that James 4 is really pointing towards extra-biblical moral requirements, but I agree with the point in principle and that all moral duty is derivable from scriptures. Of course, the tricky part always lies with whether certain boundaries and practices that well-meaning Christians have prescribed are in fact derivable from scriptures. Which explains the never-ending debates on pop culture and worldliness.


----------



## Bern (Mar 2, 2010)

Legalism is pride. Which is the root of all sin In my humble opinion. Being proud of yourself for attaining a certain standard (which can vary enourmously from person to person), and thinking God is pleased with you because of it. We are all legalists to some extent, we all want to earn our salvation to some extent, and we all want to be thought well of by other men. I think Rev. Winzer summed it up perfectly and more articulately than I'm able to. 

Just as an example, I think possibly the greatest danger to reformed folks is the superiority complex. Many reformed folks appear to be more intellectual than our arminian friends. More interested in theology, more interested in the weightier matters of the Christian walk, and knowing we have right doctrine as opposed to believing error. These are all good things, but they can lead us to feeling superior to other Christians. We feel we have to educate others, and often reformed folks can come across quite arrogant. We all need to guard our hearts against legalism, because when Jesus was talking to the pharisees He was adressing people like you and me.


----------



## jayce475 (Mar 2, 2010)

Perhaps these might be useful.
Is having standards legalism part 1
Is having standards legalism part 2


----------



## Andres (Mar 2, 2010)

Sonny said:


> Man made rules that are not found in the bible.
> 
> IE a former college I went to frowned upon men under 23 having beards. It was a big no no. I looked like a baby with out my facial hair, now I have one sported all the time. I'm growing a full beard right now.



I don't think your definition is sufficient. We have many "man made rules" that are not in the bible. Most laws of the land are man made and not found in the bible, i.e. traffic laws. What was the reasoning behind the no beards rule that you feel made it legalism and not just a school requirement? I am not allowed to have facial hair at my job, but I don't think it's legalism in any way.


----------



## Kiffin (Mar 2, 2010)

I'm very familiar with the circles that Sonny has been exposed to. I went to a similar college that had the same rule. Their reasoning behind the rule is the same reasoning you bring up Andres--institutional standards. But there are also those in our circles that say that facial hair is a sign of rebellion; this dates back to the 60s where growing facial hair was in protest against the war. This same group would say that women who wear pants are sinning.


----------



## Andres (Mar 2, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> I'm very familiar with the circles that Sonny has been exposed to. I went to a similar college that had the same rule. Their reasoning behind the rule is the same reasoning you bring up Andres--institutional standards. But there are also those in our circles that say that facial hair is a sign of rebellion; this dates back to the 60s where growing facial hair was in protest against the war. This same group would say that women who wear pants are sinning.



sorry, but for clarification, are you stating that you believe "institutional standards" equate to legalism or is it because it was said having a beard was a sin? If it was the latter, then did the school specifically, outright make this stance known or was it just something that was assumed? I ask because I know many institutions that prohit facial hair simply because many find it unsightly. I deem these simply a matter of preference and not one of legalism.


----------



## ValiantforTruth (Mar 2, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> I agree with points 1,4 and 5. But the contexts of Romans 8 and James 4 make me doubt points 2 and 3. The law does have a role to play in making us holy, but it could not do so by itself. Also, is the speaking of evil in James 4 really about talking about extra-biblical moral requirements? It seems to be talking about outright slandering.



Let me explain how I understand the exegesis of 2 & 3.

James 4:11 - "Do not speak evil of a brother or judge a brother". We know from other texts of Scripture that there is right judging and there is wrong judging. So James 4:11 is talking about sinful judging, not all judging. What is the criterion for sinful judging? It is judging according to a standard other than God's law. This makes the next part clear, that "whoever speaks evil of his brother and judges his brother speaks evil of the law and judges the law." If I judge my brother unrighteously (by a standard other than God's law) I am saying that God's law is not good enough; it needs this other thing added to it. Thus I disparage the law and judge the law.

Romans 8:1-4 - What I mean by #3 is that the law does not have the power within itself to produce the holiness that it requires. The law is necessary for sanctification in the sense that it is the criterion of holiness, but it cannot make us holy. Only Christ's work and the Holy Spirit can produce holiness in a sinful person. This is how I understand Romans 8:1-4, that the law has no power to make us holy, but that God did it by sending his son.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 2, 2010)

I remember St. Augustine using the phrase "The Spirit of the law" and how Jesus summed up The Spirit of the law with His 2 greatest commandments.

just saying


----------



## earl40 (Mar 2, 2010)

Joshua said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > I remember St. Augustine using the phrase "The Spirit of the law" and how Jesus summed up The Spirit of the law with His 2 greatest commandments.
> ...



More than the 10 "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Legalism In my most humble opinion can be summed up by not following The Spirit of the law as summed up by Jesus in His summation of the two commandments. Augustine wrote extensively on the "Spirit of the law" being the guide in following it.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 2, 2010)

Joshua said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...


 
I guess when I read Augustine's writings on Spirit of the law I saw something different than you. The intent of the heart towards God and his neighbor can and does break legalism. Of course this does not preclude the finer points of the law, in that they can guide us towards legalism if we follow the law by letter only.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 2, 2010)

I see where you are coming from. I was just responding to the topic that started "Anything that smacks of a Law-based code of conduct, or performance orientation is labeled legalism by me." I was simply referring to what I see as a remedy and how I can label legalism. Though below is a small part of what Augustine wrote I see some helpful information on what the Spirit of the letter of the law can be.


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1502.htm


Chapter 26.— No Fruit Good Except It Grow from the Root of Love

It is evident, then, that the oldness of the letter, in the absence of the newness of the spirit, instead of freeing us from sin, rather makes us guilty by the knowledge of sin. Whence it is written in another part of Scripture, "He that increases knowledge, increases sorrow," Ecclesiastes 1:18 — not that the law is itself evil, but because the commandment has its good in the demonstration of the letter, not in the assistance of the spirit; and if this commandment is kept from the fear of punishment and not from the love of righteousness, it is servilely kept, not freely, and therefore it is not kept at all. For no fruit is good which does not grow from the root of love. If, however, that faith be present which works by love, Galatians 5:6 then one begins to delight in the law of God after the inward man, *Romans 7:22 and this delight is the gift of the spirit, not of the letter*; even though there is another law in our members still warring against the law of the mind, until the old state is changed, and passes into that newness which increases from day to day in the inward man, while the grace of God is liberating us from the body of this death through Jesus Christ our Lord.


----------



## au5t1n (Mar 2, 2010)

I just stumbled across this while reading Matthew Henry's Commentaries on 1 Timothy 1:



> 2. The use of the law ( 8): The law is good, if a man use it lawfully. The Jews used it unlawfully, as an engine to divide the church, a cover to the malicious opposition they made to the gospel of Christ; they set it up for justification, and so used it unlawfully. We must not therefore think to set it aside, but use it lawfully, for the restraint of sin. The abuse which some have made of the law does not take away the use of it; but, when a divine appointment has been abused, call it back to its right use and take away the abuses, for the law is still very useful as a rule of life; though we are not under it as under a covenant of works, yet it is good to teach us what is sin and what is duty. It is not made for a righteous man, that is, it is not made for those who observe it; for, if we could keep the law, righteousness would be by the law (Gal. iii. 21): but it is made for wicked persons, to restrain them, to check them, and to put a stop to vice and profaneness. It is the grace of God that changes men's hearts; but the terrors of the law may be of use to tie their hands and restrain their tongues. A righteous man does not want those restraints which are necessary for the wicked; or at least the law is not made primarily and principally for the righteous, but for sinners of all sorts, whether in a greater or less measure.



For reference, here is the passage on which he is commenting:



> 1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;


----------



## Kiffin (Mar 2, 2010)

Andres said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> > I'm very familiar with the circles that Sonny has been exposed to. I went to a similar college that had the same rule. Their reasoning behind the rule is the same reasoning you bring up Andres--institutional standards. But there are also those in our circles that say that facial hair is a sign of rebellion; this dates back to the 60s where growing facial hair was in protest against the war. This same group would say that women who wear pants are sinning.
> ...



No, I'm saying that the school has every right to have institutional standards, just as long their reasoning is simply that--institutional standards (preference). But there were students who came from backgrounds where having facial hair was rebellion.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 2, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
> 
> The law is necessary in the sanctification of a believer, and I'm sure all of us would affirm this. So was just thinking that point 2 needs to be tightened up so as not to exclude the role of the law in sanctification, though it is certainly not all that is necessary.



How are you getting from the holiness of the law to it playing a role in sanctification? And _what_ role does it play in sanctification?

Of course there are debates over what Scripture says and over what it means; but that isn't due to any lack of perspicuity in Scripture, it's due to the darkening of our minds, so that we accept as good consequence what is mere trifling, and reject as poor reasoning what is actually necessary consequence - and of course our censorious and rebellious hearts don't help.


----------



## Reformed Rush (Mar 2, 2010)

Bern's post #25 answers best . . .spiritual legalism is the fruit of humanistic pride.


----------



## jayce475 (Mar 3, 2010)

py3ak said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> > Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
> ...


 


> Romans 8:1-4 - What I mean by #3 is that the law does not have the power within itself to produce the holiness that it requires. The law is necessary for sanctification in the sense that it is the criterion of holiness, but it cannot make us holy. Only Christ's work and the Holy Spirit can produce holiness in a sinful person. This is how I understand Romans 8:1-4, that the law has no power to make us holy, but that God did it by sending his son.



Ruben, there, this is the "role" that I was referring to. We're just working on different definitions of what "role" is.



> Of course there are debates over what Scripture says and over what it means; but that isn't due to any lack of perspicuity in Scripture, it's due to the darkening of our minds, so that we accept as good consequence what is mere trifling, and reject as poor reasoning what is actually necessary consequence - and of course our censorious and rebellious hearts don't help.



Yes, absolutely. This is why we try out utmost best to study the whole counsel of God, so that by inductive study we can understand it as best as we can, aided by the Holy Spirit. We major over the major and minor over the minor, though oftentimes we also debate over what is major and what is minor. The more conservative brethren among us, myself inclusive, would not concede ground over separation from the world simply because of how serious the repercussions are.



> James 4:11 - "Do not speak evil of a brother or judge a brother". We know from other texts of Scripture that there is right judging and there is wrong judging. So James 4:11 is talking about sinful judging, not all judging. What is the criterion for sinful judging? It is judging according to a standard other than God's law. This makes the next part clear, that "whoever speaks evil of his brother and judges his brother speaks evil of the law and judges the law." If I judge my brother unrighteously (by a standard other than God's law) I am saying that God's law is not good enough; it needs this other thing added to it. Thus I disparage the law and judge the law.



Ben, it appears that the KJV renders James 4:11 a bit differently. "Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge." I acknowledge that there are some commentators who say that this refers to mainly to extra-biblical moral standards, but I'm just not persuaded by that sense. Yes it can possibly refer to extra-biblical standards, but it is not the focus, so I felt that this is not a good proof-text against those setting extra-biblical standards. 

Gill's commentary on this:

"He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law" He that is a talebearer and backbites his brother, his fellow member, and detracts from his good name and character, and takes upon him to judge his heart, and his state, as well as, to condemn his actions, he speaks evil of the law; and judges and condemns that, as if that forbid a thing that was lawful, even tale bearing and detraction, Lev 19:16, or by speaking evil of him for a good thing he does, he blames and condemns the law, as though it commanded a thing that was evil; and by passing sentence upon his brother, he takes upon him the province of the law, which is to accuse, charge, convince, pronounce guilty, and condemn.


----------



## puritan lad (Mar 3, 2010)

David Chilton gives the following definitions:

1.) Demanding an adherence to manmade laws (don't drink, smoke, dance, etc.)
2.) Using God's law as a means of Justification.
3.) Demanding an adherence to OT Ceremonial laws (Messianic Judaism).
4.) Demanding civil penalties for sins where the Bible does not (punishing for "greed", "hate", etc.)


----------



## jayce475 (Mar 3, 2010)

puritan lad said:


> David Chilton gives the following definitions:
> 
> 1.) Demanding an adherence to manmade laws (don't drink, smoke, dance, etc.)
> 2.) Using God's law as a means of Justification.
> ...


 
I'm wondering what is meant by "demanding an adeherence to to manmade laws". Does it mean judging those actions as inherently sinful, meting out punishment for those actions, or simply advising against those actions? I just think that too often we're swinging too wildly away from the position of fulfilling the law with manmade ideas to one where liberty is emphasized at the expense of biblical principles. There needs to be a balance somewhere, though PBers seem to differ greatly on where the balance really is. By the way, when I look at the cultural climate in Singapore, drinking and smoking are made out by the secular media to be inherently bad/sinful in themselves, and there are few Christians who would dare say smoking or drinking can be accepted. It's not even just the conservative churches. The charismatic megachurches are really quite strict on these as well.


----------



## buggy (Mar 3, 2010)

Yes, but is it biblical for a church to BAN members from partaking in things whereby the Scriptures is silent? 

Most SBC, fundamentalist, and many charismatic churches and so on contain a clause in their church covenant "...to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating beverages..." 

Given that the Scriptures does not say that drinking per se is a sin (most pro-abstinence churches will accept this even except for hyper-fundamentalists who believe Jesus made grape juice), is it proper and biblical for a church to _ban_ members from partaking in such? And this is what I, and probably many PBers, call legalism. We may apply the same principle to music, theatres, and so on and so forth.

I am not saying that churches should let a "laissez-faire" policy. We should give advice, educate Christians on what Christian liberty is properly, and let members decide how to apply it. As they mature in Christ, they will more wisely apply this and use/restrain their Christian liberty as the situation demands. But banning/threat of church discipline? I do not see anywhere in the Bible that permits this. 

"Legalism" as we would define has its roots in revivalism and Christian perfectionism in the 18th/19th century. During that situation, so many people (e.g. drunkards, gambling addicts) received Christ, and abandoned their sins. In order to encourage these new-born believers in their walk, the revivalists not just adviced, but _demanded_ abstinence from a lot of things (drinking, smoking etc.), even to the point of threatening excommunication for those who will not. While this spirit is admirable, it is neither demanded by scripture and places a heavy yoke to believers who are convicted otherwise. This spirit will then spread to Arminian fundamentalism/charismaticism, both which are pietist in root and foundation. 

And Jason, the reason why the cultural climate in SG is somewhat anti-alcohol/tobacco etc. is because the "traditional Asian" mindset is still prevalent here. But this is changing very soon.

One good question for everyone - how about interpret worldliness from another perspective? Many of us say "worldliness" is mimicking the world. That is true. But, do we base our separation on what the culture of the world says all the time? (e.g. we abstain from X to avoid offending Y and Z) Isn't that a form of worldliness - whereby the *world* dictates what we are to partake or abstain? 

Fear and walk with God, rather than Man.


----------



## jayce475 (Mar 3, 2010)

buggy said:


> Yes, but is it biblical for a church to BAN members from partaking in things whereby the Scriptures is silent?
> 
> Most SBC, fundamentalist, and many charismatic churches and so on contain a clause in their church covenant "...to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating beverages..."
> 
> ...


 
"hyper-fundamentalists who believe Jesus made grape juice"? As you would have noticed by now, I am from a church which does pride itself on being "fundamentalist", though I myself do not readily identify with the term. The pulpits of our churches do preach that Jesus made grape juice, but to label our denomination as hyper-fundamentalist is unfair to say the least. Not that you are directly labeling the bible-Presbyterians, but there are hardly any other churches in Singapore are even think of themselves as "fundamentalists". "Hyper-fundamentalism" is a label with connotations far beyond a stance against alcohol. Alcohol is an issue addressed at length by scriptures and people do differ on it. Let's save that for another discussion and not derail the topic.

With regards to banning, this is why I was asking for a definition on what " demanding an adherence" means. I also do not see anywhere in the bible threatening excommunication for those who are worldly. Not all sins are the same, and the civil and moral laws provide ample guidelines on what sins are more serious than others. Watching a movie on TV is not a sin, watching a rock concert on DVD is not a sin, watching Mediacorp dramas is not a sin, reading Da Vinci's Code is not a sin and playing computer games is not a sin. However, most Christian teenagers within our Singaporean culture soak and immerse themselves in such things without very much discernment at all and are opening themselves up to all kinds of ungodly influences and thoughts. You say, "We should give advice, educate Christians on what Christian liberty is properly, and let members decide how to apply it" and I absolutely agree. The issue is what kind of advice you are giving. For myself and the more conservative brethren, the advice is to practise physical biblical separation if you are not doing it to the glory of God and don't revel in such things. Stay in the zone where you can remain godly, and expand it when you mature in Christ. You advocate a rather different kind of advice where liberty is emphasized and people are called to use their own discretion to determine what is acceptable and what is not. My contention is that in the process many young people in our churches will be suckered into the world, especially those who not truly regenerate like the Christians described in Hebrews 6:6. I do not know what teenagers in America are like, but Singaporean ones I know all too well. DoTA, Gossip Girl and the latest ongoings at St. James Power Station have occupied the minds and speech of too many of our young people, even professing Christians. Their minds need to be filled with the meditation of God's word, not such junk. I simply cannot agree with your approach towards biblical separation. If you're talking about actually watching a rock concert at an event like Woodstock, we are too readily associating ourselves with ungodly culture, so we should abstain from that.

Is the "traditional Asian" mindset wrong? If it is changing very soon, are we to say that it is for the better? We evaluate absolutely everything against the bible. If our body is the holy temple of God, then we should not smoke. The fact that our society recognizes that smoking is bad for our bodies does not undermine this truth.



> One good question for everyone - how about interpret worldliness from another perspective? Many of us say "worldliness" is mimicking the world. That is true. But, do we base our separation on what the culture of the world says all the time? (e.g. we abstain from X to avoid offending Y and Z) Isn't that a form of worldliness - whereby the world dictates what we are to partake or abstain?



This is simply not what the bible is saying when it talks about the world and worldliness. We read the bible and seek our best to understand it, but try to put some rather different spin on it. If you wish, do bring up some specific verses that we can discuss.

By the way, Tian, may I ask what fundamentalist baptist church you left?


----------



## buggy (Mar 4, 2010)

My apologies if you deem me to tie the BPs with hyperfundamentalists. I have never said this but I have only said that hyperfundamentalists are some of those that do believe in the grape-juice thing. I do not know of any BP church that promotes this. I have never said that we should visit rock concerts etc. I am a believer that if one lives for the Lord, then naturally his attitude towards the things of the world changes. 

Please accept my apology if you are offended by what I had posted just now.

I cannot reveal the name of my IFB church (at least not now). I was unsettled by some experiences there and feel emotionally hurt. I am currently seeking help from various elders/pastors to help me on this issue.


----------



## KMK (Mar 4, 2010)

Thread closed. If further discussion is desired on fundamentalism, please start a new thread.


----------

