Pharisaism and the PB

Status
Not open for further replies.
PB raspberries!!!????!!!???.......I can just imagine Calvin doing that..... and foamy spittle dribbling on his beard..
 
PB raspberries!!!????!!!???.......I can just imagine Calvin doing that..... and foamy spittle dribbling on his beard..

To be polite when offering raspberries and thereby reduce the chance of soiling one's beard always remember to swallow first - unless one has a chaw or dip in one's mouth, the expectoration into a proper receptacle prior to offering the raspberry would be preferable.
 
Guess I'm not reading the right threads. Just not seeing people calling other people Pharisees here on PB. I do see when others disagree on a certain topic, but I think that's to be expect (iron sharpens iron sort of thing) as long as we are kind and loving about it.
 
Guess I'm not reading the right threads. Just not seeing people calling other people Pharisees here on PB.

It happens.

Well, it's intimated. I can tell when a poster is screaming at me or anyone else as they sit front of their computer. :eek: It's what I call cyber-ice - an uneasy Arctic chill floating through cyberspace. And if I can tell, that means they can probably tell if I'm doing the same thing. :(
 
This is just for Bill so he doesn't have to confuse people with trying to spell bodily noises. :D

raspberry.gif
 
I believe that the reformed are most like the pharisees in all the right ways. We hold to a stricter observance of the law than the average church and church goer...I don't run from being called a pharisee anymore than I run from being called a calvinist

I can respect that, Bob. You are right about reformers being strict observers of the law--that is good. We all should be. What I am critical of is calling this or that wrong when it is not clearly spelled out in Scripture.

Daniel, I think it depends on the issue. Do we consider a brother who holds to a different baptismal position to be in sin, or are we exercising a private scruple? How about the RPW? Preference or command? The trinity? Wisdom, charity, resolve, and descretion are needed in these areas. If scripture is clear on a matter then we should not be afraid to speak out for/against it. When scripture is not clear we should be careful in accusing a brother to be in sin, although there is nothing that prohibits the one with the scruple from being dogmatic.
 
This has been a great discussion thus far....I've really enjoyed a lot of the ideas exchanged in this thread! I think it truly is hard to balance between legalism and license at times, and we see that tension here on the PB. We desire to please God and obey His commandments, and live upright and holy lives. Yet, at times we tend to swing the pendulum in one direction or another in response to the things we've experienced. It truly is difficult to discern what is the right and holy thing to do when the Bible is not clear in certain areas. I came across something a while ago that I thought would be profitable to include here! It has been incredibly useful to me in most situations! It may not provide clarity on every single issue, but I think it is well to keep in mind lest we become pharisaical or too lenient in areas of our lives!

Taken from: Legalism: Does It Lead to True Righteousness?

1. Will I glorify God? (1 Cor. 10:31)
2. Will my behavior be profitable for other Christians? (1 Cor. 10:23)
3. Will this help provide a credible gospel witness? (1 Cor. 10:33; Col. 4:5)
4. Will it not slow me down spiritually? (Heb. 12:1)
5. Will I be a good example? (Rom. 14:13)
6. Will this behavior allow me to imitate Christ? (1 Cor. 11:1; 1 John 2:6)
7. Will I be free from the appearance of evil? (1 Thess. 5:22)
8. Will I not be conformed to the world's system? (Rom. 12:2)
9. Will I not be enslaved? (1 Cor. 6:12)
10. Will I not spiritually harm others? (1 Cor. 8:13)
 
I am reminded of quotation that was mentioned in church a few weeks ago.

"Love God, and do as you please." (Augustine)

While I am sure Augustine did not mean that we have license to sin, because he was diligent about obedience in his own christian life, I believe he discovered the key to overcoming legalism--loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.

The law is our teacher to tell us what God wants. We learn it, we use it to check our behavior in those moments when we are unsure what to do. However, our focus is to be on loving God and loving our neighbor. When the Lord becomes our focus, we do end up doing the right thing almost without thought, and the questionable things become undesirable.

It is true that while some use obeying the law as a way to prove their righteousness (before God, and/or others), some have such sensitive hearts that they get nit-picky about the law out of fear that God will not be pleased with them anymore, or that He will cast them aside. I don't know for sure if this is wrong, but I question that motive in my own heart.

Fear of the Lord is different than being afraid of God, and I think that often we can step over the line from fear of the Lord to being afraid. That is when we have to go back again to the cross and remind ourselves that we are children of God, not orphans.

Looking unto Jesus, the Author and Perfector of our faith.
 
I am reminded of quotation that was mentioned in church a few weeks ago.

"Love God, and do as you please." (Augustine)

While I am sure Augustine did not mean that we have license to sin, because he was diligent about obedience in his own christian life, I believe he discovered the key to overcoming legalism--loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.

The law is our teacher to tell us what God wants. We learn it, we use it to check our behavior in those moments when we are unsure what to do. However, our focus is to be on loving God and loving our neighbor. When the Lord becomes our focus, we do end up doing the right thing almost without thought, and the questionable things become undesirable.

It is true that while some use obeying the law as a way to prove their righteousness (before God, and/or others), some have such sensitive hearts that they get nit-picky about the law out of fear that God will not be pleased with them anymore, or that He will cast them aside. I don't know for sure if this is wrong, but I question that motive in my own heart.

Fear of the Lord is different than being afraid of God, and I think that often we can step over the line from fear of the Lord to being afraid. That is when we have to go back again to the cross and remind ourselves that we are children of God, not orphans.

Looking unto Jesus, the Author and Perfector of our faith.

Exactly! As we grow in our love Christ, seeking Him with all our might, then the Holy Spirit will transform us more into Christ's image. We will hate what Christ hated and love what Christ loved. Christ obeyed the Law perfectly because He perfectly loved the Father and was single-minded in His devotion to obeying the Father's will. This is the only way to avoid legalism.

Actually, I wrote a note on Facebook about this very issue. I think I may post that essay here.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. After all, the Decalogue is a list....

and, more to the point, Q&A 99 through 148 of the WLC contain a huge "list" that is man-made, not divine as the Decalogue is. The Westminster divines had no problem with setting apart certain things as ways of violating God's Law - things that are not in many cases directly spelled out in Scripture. They took the time, as we ought, to consider carefully things we do and give warning through their teaching about things we do that we often carelessly do, thinking we are without sin in the matter (when we very well may be).

I agree, though almost every item listed in the LC has an accompanying proof text. My point is that lists of Do's and Don'ts are not inherently bad - in fact they are very good when based on sound Scriptural principle.

To piggy back off of you guys...WCF I.VI

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men

I think this gets to the heart of the discussion this thread has generated. As far as law keeping goes, it doesn't come under the rubric of man's salvation or even faith but it does follow under life as I think Rich also pointed out as another use of the law. The lists that are contained directly in the Bible that are still binding would fall under the expressly set down in Scripture portion. Some of the lists that occur in the WLC and tossed around on the PB would come under the good and necessary consequence part.

The thing to be on guard is the word necessary. We can deduce things from Scripture but for them to be binding on the church as a whole not only does it have to be a good deduction, it has to be a necessary one and not adiaphora.

Others have hit on the not adding to portion. I venture to guess that this is where the discussion lies. People want to debate whether law A is or is not a necessary deduction or if it is a man made addition. For me it goes back to Sola Scriptura and becomes an biblical-theological/exegetical issue that requires due dilligence of study and discussion rather than platitutes and accusations. I'm sure everyone agrees with that but it is soooo much harder to practice that especially on the interwebs.

:2cents: Later!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top