Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Balancing The Christian Life


GraceSaved

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Standards are ideas about morally correct and acceptable behavior.  Someone who refrains from doing what they think is morally wrong.  Everyone has standards.  

 

Legalism is nothing but spiritualized perfectionism changing a person from the outside in.  

 

How do we balance the two without breaking fellowships?

 

Is it possible that what's okay for me is wrong for you, and vice versa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

1 Cor 10 speaks at length about conscience - it indicates two things: that for a man to go against his own conscience is indeed sin to that man; and, that each man should also be aware of another man's conscience - in other words, not offend in these matters.
The context indicates that the activity is somewhat incidental (if it is not inherently sinful), but in such situations it is the conscience of the man that is the decider. (Not about salvation either by the way)

Example - in Australia wearing shorts is extremely commonplace and not deemed inappropriate in general.
I have an American missionary friend who is against wearing shorts.
If I am meeting with him, I will wear long pants. But I wear shorts a lot.

He doesn't by the way say that a man who wears shorts is obviously not saved.
He just thinks shorts are inappropriate dress.

Yes, it is that balance between reasonable standards and giving the impression that those standards make a man spiritual - or even in extremes, saved.

God does have unmoveable standards that apply to everyone, but there are standards that are grey around the edges and these are subjective.

One thing I find curious is where people who are "anti standards" basically argue that no one can force their standards on them (which I agree with by the way) but then proceed to try to force their standards (which they like to say is no standards) on me by saying that I can't have standards.
In other words, if I don't think like them then I am wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Grey areas is where Satan reigns. What is right or wrong for Christians in America is right of wrong for Christians no matter where they reside and vice-versa  Subjectively is a means by which man justifies to himself what is right or what is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Grey areas is where Satan reigns. What is right or wrong for Christians in America is right of wrong for Christians no matter where they reside and vice-versa Subjectively is a means by which man justifies to himself what is right or what is wrong.


I don't disagree, but in my example of shorts, there is no Biblical directive on this specific point - what is acceptable and appropriate varies at the edges.
The Bible is plain for instance about nakedness - there is a definite there.

But different societies have different dress standards as to what is appropriate.

The problem is that where the Bible is unclear many times people err on the sinful side rather than the safe side.
We like to push it as far as we can, rather than staying where we know it is safe within the boundary......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So your church allows members to dress in ANY WAY THEY LIKE for any church activity?
Or act however they like whenever they like in a church service?

I very much doubt it - you have standards, you just don't like other people's standards.
Standards themselves are not legalism.

once again, i repeat, if you cant put chapter and verse to it, it's legalism. What is also telling about this is that you think that if it ain't like what you don't believe, then it might be sinful. You think if a girl wears jeans to church that somehow she might be a tramp? or that her heart is truly all for God. Or if the music isnt what you're use to, then it's sinful? 

 

 

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So Jeff, what would happen if a member of the choir at your church turned up to sing wearing a bikini?

you have this issue with people coming to church in the nude or in bikinis, something you would like to share?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So Jeff, what would happen if a member of the choir at your church turned up to sing wearing a bikini?

 

I personally would give them this verse and send them home to change immediately.

 

 1Ti 2:9 ¶ In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

 

a bikini is not modest apparel and it would reflect on the teaching of the pastors/teachers/elders
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Your restraunt comparison doesn't hold up, a place of business and a church have two different atmospheres, ones a business the other is a house of worship. And as I told you before, your naked comparison is a false dichotomy, the nude individual would be breaking the law.when you attach godliness and holiness to a set of expected behaviors which are above and not found in Scripture, you have legalism:
Legalism; no dancing
Legalism; dress codes, all dress must be 4" below the knee
Legalism; don't go into a bar, even if it's for their restraunt,
Legalism; don't go into a place or event that serves alcohol, never mind the fact that our God provided wine at a wedding
Legalism, don't go to the movies
You get the point, you will not find laws against these activities in Scripture.

 

It's not legalism if there is a Biblical principle behind it:

 

(I don't have the time to track down each Scripture reference but these should all be familiar; I'll get them later if you wish)

 

dress codes, all dress must be 4" below the knee - modesty (men aren't to wear women's clothes and vice versa; an uncovered thigh is nakedness; lust the same as adultery; providing an opportunity for someone to lust is a stumbling block)

 

don't go into a bar/alcohol - "come out from among them and be ye separate", Christian's shouldn't drink (many threads here on this one, we can talk about it privately or in a separate one if you like), stumbling block

 

movies/dancing - these seem more grey areas to me, but I haven't really looked into them much yet; I'd lean towards no for dancing the way it is currently done under the principles of modesty, abstain from fornication (added temptation due to how sexualized it is), etc.

 

Where "thou shalt not" is not specifically expressed, Biblical principles make the standards. It's not legalism to follow the spirit of what the Bible has to say on certain subjects. It's legalism to say something is ok because the Bible doesn't explicitly forbid it. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the definition of legalism works both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Again, the term "legalism" as it is used today originated from the earlier 1920's when the debate between modernism and fundamentalism were at its peak in America. The term and how most people view it today springs directly out of the modernist movement. It's stems from the same crowd that wrested the "judge not lest ye be judged" passage to the detriment of the church and brought it to the place today where Christians are afraid to say anything negative against sin (unless it's the "sin" of rebuking sin). I even heard some Christians the other day say we can never judge homosexuality as sin. All this kind of thinking originated from the early '20 when the modernism movement sweep through all the seminaries and churches. Everybody I know that was always crying about "legalism" were always one step from jumping headlong back into the world.

 

I will agree that God's love and grace should be the ruling principle in our hearts and not a bunch of rules and regulations but  having that principle ruling in our spirits doesn't nullify the need for standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's clear that legalism in Biblical times is improper use of the law.  Someone trying to gain or keep salvation by keeping the law. Christians were tempted to go back to the practices of Judaism.  They didn't feel that salvation by grace through faith was enough. If salvation came through the law, then Christ died needlessly.  We all know that.

 

It's harder to define legalism today since we as Christians don't practice Judaism.  However, it is a frequent problem in the church and is a cancer in Christianity. Today, it's an over-emphasis on codes of conduct.

 

We all know that Christians should abstain from adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, pornography, etc.  Christians do have a right to judge the spirituality of other Christians in these areas where the Bible speaks clearly.  But, in the debatable areas, we need to be more careful.  This is where legalism is more difficult to define.  Romans 14:1-2 sums it up nicely.  We can apply these principles today.

 

We are to welcome with open arms fellow believers who don't see things the way we do and have differing opinions.  If someone needs correcting, God is able to handle them without our help. As long as our freedoms don't violate scripture, we need to be convinced in our own minds.

 

We must not hold people to a standard of conformity that is outside the teachings of scripture.

 

Common examples have already been brought up in this thread and are reasons why there are so many denominations and splits.  Legalism is invisible to the legalist.  Unsaved people can smell legalism.  And once they do, they'll be heading for the hills as fast as their unregenerate legs can carry them.

 

Here are some that haven't been mentioned.  I've heard all of these in different churches.

 

Breastfeeding, natural birthing, birth control, women working outside the home, resistance to technological advances, never buy anything on credit...and there are more.

 

With all this said, that doesn't mean we have liberty to do as we please.  There are those that are so extreme with liberty that they are really displaying disobedience.

 

So please, no bikinis in church!  :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think more often than not (but certainly not always) the charge of legalism stems from someone not understanding or not being willing to accept what the Bible has to say on a subject. Unsaved, or newly saved, people often resist standards because they don't understand why it is a standard. Their response usually begins with "show me where the Bible says I can't/should do that," but they rarely look for themselves. Often times, "the unsaved smell legalism" where there really is none out of ignorance or unwillingness to investigate. That is why it is critical for Christians not to blindly accept or reject a standard, but to investigate them first before coming to a decision about it. Secondly, people are fallible and so where the Bible is not explicit we must be gracefully open to considering the possibility that we may be wrong on the application or necessity of a given standard and willing to adjust our position as necessary.

 

A good way to tell the difference between legalism and standards is that legalism is arbitrary or taken out of context while standards require sound Biblical reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...