|
|
Post by gomer on Aug 23, 2022 9:05:53 GMT -8
Was Paul instructing those Christians in Philippi to be legalists when he told them to walk by the same rule? (Phil 3:16) The word rule carries the meaning of a standard of measure. If people do not walk by the same standard of measure, the NT, then there will be total chaos with people following their own opinion as their standard of measure which has resulted in 1000's of religious groups all contradicting each other yet all claim to be 'right' doctrinally. So by your definition I would be a legalist but I am in good company for Jesus Christ would have been the biggest legalist (according to your definition) that ever walked the earth. Do you deny there are rules on how to be saved, on how to worship, on marriage/divorce/remarriage, etc? Those who do not agree with salvation by faith only are legalists? Where does the Bible teach one can be doctrinally wrong (not following NT standard of rule) yet be saved anyway? Excuse me sir. But Paul did not tell people to follow a set of rules or lose their salvation. He spoke of obedience. But he spoke in the means of grace. Paul taught a legalistic gospel. Calling it a false gospel. And thise who taught it he said were foolish for buying into it. The thought that one is found n the spirit (grace through faith) but perfects int he flesh (works) The word 'rule' carries the meaning of a standard, a standard of measure like a yard stick where 36" is the SAME standard of measure for all. Christianity is not some wild free for all where each person can choose for himself what he wants to believe. In such a free for all there is no standard just a lot of chaos and contradictions. The doctrine of Christ is a standard to believe and live by and all must meet that same standard in order to be saved for John says those who do not have that doctrine of Christ does not have God (2 John 1:9-10). Christ's doctrine is "truth" and truth never contradicts itself. |
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Aug 23, 2022 9:11:10 GMT -8
Excuse me sir. But Paul did not tell people to follow a set of rules or lose their salvation. He spoke of obedience. But he spoke in the means of grace. Paul taught a legalistic gospel. Calling it a false gospel. And thise who taught it he said were foolish for buying into it. The thought that one is found n the spirit (grace through faith) but perfects int he flesh (works) The word 'rule' carries the meaning of a standard, a standard of measure like a yard stick where 36" is the SAME standard of measure for all. Christianity is not some wild free for all where each person can choose for himself what he wants to believe. In such a free for all there is no standard just a lot of chaos and contradictions. The doctrine of Christ is a standard to believe and live by and all must meet that same standard in order to be saved for John says those who do not have that doctrine of Christ does not have God (2 John 1:9-10). Christ's doctrine is "truth" and truth never contradicts itself. Your right God does have a standard, a standard by which all must live of they want to save themselves. perfection., The moment you commit your first sin, you have have failed to live up to that standard. And will never be able to work your way back to living up to that standard again, Your guilty as charged. For ALL have sinned and FALL SHORT of Gods glory (his perfect standard) If you want to do as yu are preaching, You must live that standard. You failed already, we all have. so please. look at grace.. because you can obey commands until your blue in the face. Your still guilty and still in a condemned state unless you repent and come in faith See John 3!!He who believes is not condemned.. He who does not believe is condemned already.. there is your standard since we have failed to meet the true standard,. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2022 10:03:41 GMT -8
I hear Jesus accepts 10% perfection and above.
|
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Aug 23, 2022 10:48:39 GMT -8
Since I oppose the idea that salvation is by "grace alone" or "faith alone" makes me a legalist? Yes. Without a doubt ......You could be the “ Poster Boy” for Legalism.....A Legalist is anybody who is trying to be “ put right” with God By obeying the Law....( Gal 5:4)...... on Judgement Day , it will be that Unsaved “ Look what “ I” did , God!” Crowd, as opposed to that Saved Crowd that humbly says, “ Thank you for what “ YOU” did , God!” I don’t know for sure if Legalist are Lost or not—— I ** DO** know that They are ALL “ Fallen From Grace” and are “ Severed from Christ” ( Gal5:4) , so If Those terrible descriptions things mean that one us damned, some people better get it together fast.... If I may borrow from Jeff Foxworthy, if you are one of those out there that says “,Jesus Saves— BUT ! “ ——- you just might be a Legalist! Hence "legalism" is nothing more than a made up term to hurl at those who do not agree with Luther's faith only-ism. Yet I do not believe salvation can be earned by good works, hence the term 'legalist" becomes a straw man type term. From the article I posted in the OP: " Or, is legalism the idea that “external” works, by themselves, will earn a person enough merit to get to heaven? I have to admit, I have never (in the thousands of pages of theological literature I have read in my lifetime) seen it defined that way, and I don’t believe I have ever met anyone who actually believes that. If no one defines it this way and no one believes it when stated that way, then the term “legalist” is nothing other than a straw-man, a caricature that has no correspondence to a real person or an actual doctrine." The Jews/Pharisees were condemned for many things but they were never condemned for obeying God's law but instead condemned over and over again for not obeying God's law. Jesus saves BUT....He only saves those who OBEY Him (Heb 5:9) making Jesus Christ the biggest legalist to ever walk the earth.....according to how some want to define the blank, empty word "legaiism". you defeat your only argument when you try to attack people as following luther. when that is far from the truth. We are saved by grace through faith (we are not even saved BY faith, but THROUGH IT not works. If it is grace, it is no longer of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. You say you do not preach legalism, yet here you are once again claiming we are saved by our deeds (works, or obaying a set of rules) I would maybe suggest something, If your going to own something, Own it. Don't deny it.. |
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Aug 23, 2022 10:51:17 GMT -8
I hear Jesus accepts 10% perfection and above. ?? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2022 10:54:06 GMT -8
I hear Jesus accepts 10% perfection and above. ??
Okay, okay, that's a bit low.
God accepts 50% perfection and above.
Not sure I'm making that grade.
|
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Aug 23, 2022 11:15:37 GMT -8
Okay, okay, that's a bit low.
God accepts 50% perfection and above.
Not sure I'm making that grade.
if I look at my whole life. I am not sure I hit the 10%  |
|
|
|
Post by charlie24 on Aug 23, 2022 16:41:01 GMT -8
DEFINING LEGALISM by David McClister ( my emp) One of the more interesting issues in modern biblical scholarship is the attempt to attain a better understanding of the Jews of the first century, the Jews with whom Jesus and Paul dealt. In spite of the fact that these Jews are mentioned often in the New Testament, the fact is that we just do not know all that much about them.
This is particularly true about the Jewish group that is most prominent in the New Testament, the Pharisees. They themselves left no historical documents which explain or describe how they understood their religion. It is true that their “descendants” (after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD) left lots of documents behind (which eventually became the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the Talmud), but very little of those documents describe the beliefs and practices of the Jews who lived in the first century. In fact, the pedagogical descendants of the Pharisees did not even call themselves Pharisees.
In spite of this shortage of actual historical documents, it has long been assumed that the Pharisees were legalists. But there are two very important questions that go along with this. First, just exactly how do we know that the Pharisees were legalists? [We will leave this matter alone for now; discussing it would take us far from the point I am wishing to make.] The second question is even more important: just what is legalism in the first place? This question turns out to be difficult to answer.
Legalism seems to be like a poem – no one can seem to define it, but everyone thinks they know it when they see it. However, it may surprise you to know that the English word “legalism” itself was not coined until 1645. Even more importantly, there is no Hebrew or Greek word in the Bible that means “legalism.” This latter fact is seldom appreciated. In all of the debates that Paul had with Judaizing teachers, in all the responses he had to their teachings, not once did he ever call them “legalists.” Why not? Because of the simple reason that every Jew – including Jesus, Paul, the Pharisees, and the Judaizers – believed that a person’s works, his deeds, his obedience to God, was without doubt part of a right relationship with God. Within Judaism, that was never at issue. No Jew in that day and age debated whether or not “works” were part of being right with God. Everyone agreed that they were.
It was only after Martin Luther came up with his doctrine of “faith only” (which he, mistakenly, attributed to the apostle Paul) that the modern idea of “legalism” was born. Ever since that time, it has been common to refer to people who emphasize obedience to God in deeds (works) which are demanded by God’s word as “legalists.” But, as I pointed out above, in the days of Jesus and the apostles, whether or not people should actually obey God with deeds of righteousness was never an issue. One of the implications of this fact is that it is not accurate (it is, specifically, anachronistic) to describe Paul’s debate with the Judaizers as a debate over legalism. It simply was not part of the problem. They didn’t even have a word for it!
In spite of the non-biblical foundation of the term, the word “legalist” is still thrown around quite liberally in religious discussions. Protestant evangelicals routinely refer to Roman Catholics as legalists. Liberal evangelicals routinely refer to conservative evangelicals as legalists. Some folks in denominational churches have called members of the Lord’s church “legalists,” and even within our fellowship I have heard some Christians refer to other Christians as legalists. In each of these scenarios, the term “legalist” has been applied simply because someone was emphasizing that we ought to be doing what God says we should do, to the chagrin of someone else.
Someone might say that legalism is the idea that a person can be right with God simply on the basis of obeying God’s “rules.” Usually, this is said in some kind of context where faith is being presented as the only way to be right with God in the gospel. The legalist, therefore, is supposedly the person who believes that faith (“only”; defined as a mental activity) is not enough to save a person, but that such a person must also do certain things in order to be right with God. However, note this conversation: “They [in this context, Jews] said to Him, ‘What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent’” (John 6.28-29). Unless I have seriously misunderstood this passage, Jesus said that having faith is doing what God requires (“working the works of God”). Faith is, if you will, one of God’s “rules.” So is the person who believes in God being a legalist for doing so? I hardly think that’s what people who use the term “legalist” would say.
So what is legalism? Is legalism a matter of being “too strict” about God’s demands? If so, where in the Bible is the list of things about which we should be strict and the things we can be lax about? Who decides when someone is being too strict? Or is legalism a failure to talk enough about the internal qualities a Christian must have, and talking too much about external obedience? If so, where in the Bible is the passage that tells me how much emphasis on external good deeds is too much? How can I measure when I have not emphasized the internal requirements of God “enough”? Am I a legalist simply because I don’t say it to another’s satisfaction? The fact is that both a right heart and good deeds are required before God. “I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give to each man according to his ways, according to the results of his deeds” (Jer 17.10).
Or, is legalism the idea that “external” works, by themselves, will earn a person enough merit to get to heaven? I have to admit, I have never (in the thousands of pages of theological literature I have read in my lifetime) seen it defined that way, and I don’t believe I have ever met anyone who actually believes that. If no one defines it this way and no one believes it when stated that way, then the term “legalist” is nothing other than a straw-man, a caricature that has no correspondence to a real person or an actual doctrine.
One modern scholar has put it this way: “…the term only has meaning within the context of a prior decision as to the relationship between faith and human response. … In Christian theology, the meaning of legalism varies with the soteriology of the individual user and his or her tradition” (K. Yinger, “Defining Legalism” Andrews University Seminary Studies 46 (2008) 91-108; at 96-97). Let’s put that into common English: the term “legalism” is so imprecise that it means nothing. It means whatever the person who is using the term thinks it means, or wants it to mean. But that’s not how communication is accomplished. We communicate when we both use words that we understand in the same way. When someone uses a word (like “legalism”) in a way that they alone define, then they are not actually communicating anything.
Very often, I suspect that the charge of legalism, when it is hurled at us by denominational folks, simply means “you think that a person has to do something to be right with God, something more than just believing in Jesus.” In other words, “legalism” often means that I do not believe in the denominational doctrine of “faith only.” Even when Christians accuse each other of being legalists, the term turns out to be empty. Christians are sometimes accused (by other Christians) of legalism who are doing nothing other than being conscientious about obedience, just more so than the person who charges them with legalism. So the charge of legalism thus simply means “you are paying more attention to that particular aspect of obedience than I do.”
To put it plainly, when someone says “you’re a legalist,” all it really means is “you do not conform to my idea of how Christianity saves us.” I suppose, then, that I’m a legalist. Whatever that means.focusmagazine.org/defining-legalism.phpI can certainly give you my definition of "legalism." Anything added to faith in Christ, whereby we make that thing, whatever it may be, a legal must do to inherit the Kingdom of God along with our faith in Christ. Anything that is added to faith has become a legal matter in order to receive salvation-- Legalism. |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Aug 23, 2022 18:15:55 GMT -8
DEFINING LEGALISM by David McClister ( my emp) One of the more interesting issues in modern biblical scholarship is the attempt to attain a better understanding of the Jews of the first century, the Jews with whom Jesus and Paul dealt. In spite of the fact that these Jews are mentioned often in the New Testament, the fact is that we just do not know all that much about them.
This is particularly true about the Jewish group that is most prominent in the New Testament, the Pharisees. They themselves left no historical documents which explain or describe how they understood their religion. It is true that their “descendants” (after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD) left lots of documents behind (which eventually became the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the Talmud), but very little of those documents describe the beliefs and practices of the Jews who lived in the first century. In fact, the pedagogical descendants of the Pharisees did not even call themselves Pharisees.
In spite of this shortage of actual historical documents, it has long been assumed that the Pharisees were legalists. But there are two very important questions that go along with this. First, just exactly how do we know that the Pharisees were legalists? [We will leave this matter alone for now; discussing it would take us far from the point I am wishing to make.] The second question is even more important: just what is legalism in the first place? This question turns out to be difficult to answer.
Legalism seems to be like a poem – no one can seem to define it, but everyone thinks they know it when they see it. However, it may surprise you to know that the English word “legalism” itself was not coined until 1645. Even more importantly, there is no Hebrew or Greek word in the Bible that means “legalism.” This latter fact is seldom appreciated. In all of the debates that Paul had with Judaizing teachers, in all the responses he had to their teachings, not once did he ever call them “legalists.” Why not? Because of the simple reason that every Jew – including Jesus, Paul, the Pharisees, and the Judaizers – believed that a person’s works, his deeds, his obedience to God, was without doubt part of a right relationship with God. Within Judaism, that was never at issue. No Jew in that day and age debated whether or not “works” were part of being right with God. Everyone agreed that they were.
It was only after Martin Luther came up with his doctrine of “faith only” (which he, mistakenly, attributed to the apostle Paul) that the modern idea of “legalism” was born. Ever since that time, it has been common to refer to people who emphasize obedience to God in deeds (works) which are demanded by God’s word as “legalists.” But, as I pointed out above, in the days of Jesus and the apostles, whether or not people should actually obey God with deeds of righteousness was never an issue. One of the implications of this fact is that it is not accurate (it is, specifically, anachronistic) to describe Paul’s debate with the Judaizers as a debate over legalism. It simply was not part of the problem. They didn’t even have a word for it!
In spite of the non-biblical foundation of the term, the word “legalist” is still thrown around quite liberally in religious discussions. Protestant evangelicals routinely refer to Roman Catholics as legalists. Liberal evangelicals routinely refer to conservative evangelicals as legalists. Some folks in denominational churches have called members of the Lord’s church “legalists,” and even within our fellowship I have heard some Christians refer to other Christians as legalists. In each of these scenarios, the term “legalist” has been applied simply because someone was emphasizing that we ought to be doing what God says we should do, to the chagrin of someone else.
Someone might say that legalism is the idea that a person can be right with God simply on the basis of obeying God’s “rules.” Usually, this is said in some kind of context where faith is being presented as the only way to be right with God in the gospel. The legalist, therefore, is supposedly the person who believes that faith (“only”; defined as a mental activity) is not enough to save a person, but that such a person must also do certain things in order to be right with God. However, note this conversation: “They [in this context, Jews] said to Him, ‘What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent’” (John 6.28-29). Unless I have seriously misunderstood this passage, Jesus said that having faith is doing what God requires (“working the works of God”). Faith is, if you will, one of God’s “rules.” So is the person who believes in God being a legalist for doing so? I hardly think that’s what people who use the term “legalist” would say.
So what is legalism? Is legalism a matter of being “too strict” about God’s demands? If so, where in the Bible is the list of things about which we should be strict and the things we can be lax about? Who decides when someone is being too strict? Or is legalism a failure to talk enough about the internal qualities a Christian must have, and talking too much about external obedience? If so, where in the Bible is the passage that tells me how much emphasis on external good deeds is too much? How can I measure when I have not emphasized the internal requirements of God “enough”? Am I a legalist simply because I don’t say it to another’s satisfaction? The fact is that both a right heart and good deeds are required before God. “I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give to each man according to his ways, according to the results of his deeds” (Jer 17.10).
Or, is legalism the idea that “external” works, by themselves, will earn a person enough merit to get to heaven? I have to admit, I have never (in the thousands of pages of theological literature I have read in my lifetime) seen it defined that way, and I don’t believe I have ever met anyone who actually believes that. If no one defines it this way and no one believes it when stated that way, then the term “legalist” is nothing other than a straw-man, a caricature that has no correspondence to a real person or an actual doctrine.
One modern scholar has put it this way: “…the term only has meaning within the context of a prior decision as to the relationship between faith and human response. … In Christian theology, the meaning of legalism varies with the soteriology of the individual user and his or her tradition” (K. Yinger, “Defining Legalism” Andrews University Seminary Studies 46 (2008) 91-108; at 96-97). Let’s put that into common English: the term “legalism” is so imprecise that it means nothing. It means whatever the person who is using the term thinks it means, or wants it to mean. But that’s not how communication is accomplished. We communicate when we both use words that we understand in the same way. When someone uses a word (like “legalism”) in a way that they alone define, then they are not actually communicating anything.
Very often, I suspect that the charge of legalism, when it is hurled at us by denominational folks, simply means “you think that a person has to do something to be right with God, something more than just believing in Jesus.” In other words, “legalism” often means that I do not believe in the denominational doctrine of “faith only.” Even when Christians accuse each other of being legalists, the term turns out to be empty. Christians are sometimes accused (by other Christians) of legalism who are doing nothing other than being conscientious about obedience, just more so than the person who charges them with legalism. So the charge of legalism thus simply means “you are paying more attention to that particular aspect of obedience than I do.”
To put it plainly, when someone says “you’re a legalist,” all it really means is “you do not conform to my idea of how Christianity saves us.” I suppose, then, that I’m a legalist. Whatever that means.focusmagazine.org/defining-legalism.phpI can certainly give you my definition of "legalism." Anything added to faith in Christ, whereby we make that thing, whatever it may be, a legal must do to inherit the Kingdom of God along with our faith in Christ. Anything that is added to faith has become a legal matter in order to receive salvation-- Legalism. Hi, I agree no one can add to or take from what Christ has said about faith/belief. But obedience to what Christ has said is not legalism but is called 'righteousness". |
|
|
|
Post by charlie24 on Aug 23, 2022 18:28:17 GMT -8
Hi, I agree no one can add to or take from what Christ has said about faith/belief. But obedience to what Christ has said is not legalism but is called 'righteousness". Obedience to Christ is what we all should desire! But WHY the obedience to Christ? Are we to obey Christ thinking this is a must to be saved, or is it out of love for what Christ has done for us. It's the mindset, the reason we obey that separates the legalist from the faith alone believer. There is nothing for me to do but to believe, that creates a change, a new man that gives me the desire to please Christ. With this change in the heart, the Holy Spirit now has the legal right to work in me transforming me into the likeness of Christ. He is the One who brings forth the good works, It is He who gives us the desire to please Christ. |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Aug 23, 2022 18:39:18 GMT -8
Hence "legalism" is nothing more than a made up term to hurl at those who do not agree with Luther's faith only-ism. Yet I do not believe salvation can be earned by good works, hence the term 'legalist" becomes a straw man type term. From the article I posted in the OP: " Or, is legalism the idea that “external” works, by themselves, will earn a person enough merit to get to heaven? I have to admit, I have never (in the thousands of pages of theological literature I have read in my lifetime) seen it defined that way, and I don’t believe I have ever met anyone who actually believes that. If no one defines it this way and no one believes it when stated that way, then the term “legalist” is nothing other than a straw-man, a caricature that has no correspondence to a real person or an actual doctrine." The Jews/Pharisees were condemned for many things but they were never condemned for obeying God's law but instead condemned over and over again for not obeying God's law. Jesus saves BUT....He only saves those who OBEY Him (Heb 5:9) making Jesus Christ the biggest legalist to ever walk the earth.....according to how some want to define the blank, empty word "legaiism". you defeat your only argument when you try to attack people as following luther. when that is far from the truth. We are saved by grace through faith (we are not even saved BY faith, but THROUGH IT not works. If it is grace, it is no longer of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. You say you do not preach legalism, yet here you are once again claiming we are saved by our deeds (works, or obaying a set of rules) I would maybe suggest something, If your going to own something, Own it. Don't deny it.. A general search of the internet I made showed that faith only is accredited to Martin Luther. I am only repeating that general consensus. But it does not matter to me who it is accredited to we know Jesus Christ did not teach such an idea. Jesus Christ taught: believing saves, Jn 8:24 repentance saves, Luke 13:3 confession saves, Mt 10:32-33 baptism saves, Mk 16:16 Note from Christ's own words belief alone will not save the impenitent. Belief alone cannot save those who refuse to confess Him. Belief alone cannot save those who are not water baptized for remission of sins. You cited Rom 11:6. The 'works" in the verse refers to works of merit and is not referring to obedience to God. Psul already spoke of "obedience unto righteousness" and how those Romans "obeyed from the heart" then freed from sin/justified. In Rom 2 Paul spoke of the need to obey in repenting to be saved, in Rom 10 obey by confessing to be saved. As a matter of fact, the immediate context of Rom 11:6 cannot refer to obedience for we see from the context God's people have always been those who OBEYED Him. In OT times those who were God's people were the ones who obeyed by not bowing to Baal (v4) and God's people in this present time are those who obey the gospel (v5) (see also 2 Thess 1:8). That "remnant" of Jews were the 3000 from Acts 2 who obeyed God by repenting and being baptized. Out of all the Jews, just that small remnant who obeyed God were God's people by election of grace of the NT not by flawless works of merit as required by the OT law of Moses (v6). |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Aug 23, 2022 19:01:40 GMT -8
Hi, I agree no one can add to or take from what Christ has said about faith/belief. But obedience to what Christ has said is not legalism but is called 'righteousness". Obedience to Christ is what we all should desire! But WHY the obedience to Christ? Are we to obey Christ thinking this is a must to be saved, or is it out of love for what Christ has done for us. It's the mindset, the reason we obey that separates the legalist from the faith alone believer. There is nothing for me to do but to believe, that creates a change, a new man that gives me the desire to please Christ. With this change in the heart, the Holy Spirit now has the legal right to work in me transforming me into the likeness of Christ. He is the One who brings forth the good works, It is He who gives us the desire to please Christ. The Bible teaches on must obey Christ to be saved (Heb 5:9). Nowhere does the Bible teach disobedience saves and one is either obeying or disobeying God, no other option. As you point out, the word "legalism" came about to call those who reject "faith only". Hence if I don't believe as you then that makes me a "legalist". Again from the OP "It (legalism) means whatever the person who is using the term thinks it means, or wants it to mean. But that’s not how communication is accomplished. We communicate when we both use words that we understand in the same way. When someone uses a word (like “legalism”) in a way that they alone define, then they are not actually communicating anything." No one who ever obeyed God, OT or NT, was called a legalist for obeying God..." Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he." this did not make Noah a legalist for following all God commanded him but his obedience is what made him righteous...it's why he found grace in God's eyes. If we substitute "legalist" for "obeying" then the Bible reads the following verses read very strangely: Heb 5:9 Christ is the author of salvation unto all who are legalists. Heb 5:8 Christ learned legalism by the things He suffered Rom 6:16 legalism unto righteousness Rom 6:17 but ye have legalism from the heart Rom 16:19 for your legalism has come abroad 1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto legalism and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ Rom 1:5 legalism to the faith It is obvious obedience is not legalism and therefore adds nothing to faith but obedience is part of faith...faith is an obedient work. |
|
|
|
Post by charlie24 on Aug 23, 2022 19:23:41 GMT -8
Obedience to Christ is what we all should desire! But WHY the obedience to Christ? Are we to obey Christ thinking this is a must to be saved, or is it out of love for what Christ has done for us. It's the mindset, the reason we obey that separates the legalist from the faith alone believer. There is nothing for me to do but to believe, that creates a change, a new man that gives me the desire to please Christ. With this change in the heart, the Holy Spirit now has the legal right to work in me transforming me into the likeness of Christ. He is the One who brings forth the good works, It is He who gives us the desire to please Christ. The Bible teaches on must obey Christ to be saved (Heb 5:9). Nowhere does the Bible teach disobedience saves and one is either obeying or disobeying God, no other option. As you point out, the word "legalism" came about to call those who reject "faith only". Hence if I don't believe as you then that makes me a "legalist". Again from the OP "It (legalism) means whatever the person who is using the term thinks it means, or wants it to mean. But that’s not how communication is accomplished. We communicate when we both use words that we understand in the same way. When someone uses a word (like “legalism”) in a way that they alone define, then they are not actually communicating anything." No one who ever obeyed God, OT or NT, was called a legalist for obeying God..." Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he." this did not make Noah a legalist for following all God commanded him but his obedience is what made him righteous...it's why he found grace in God's eyes. If we substitute "legalist" for "obeying" then the Bible reads the following verses read very strangely: Heb 5:9 Christ is the author of salvation unto all who are legalists. Heb 5:8 Christ learned legalism by the things He suffered Rom 6:16 legalism unto righteousness Rom 6:17 but ye have legalism from the heart Rom 16:19 for your legalism has come abroad 1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto legalism and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ Rom 1:5 legalism to the faith It is obvious obedience is not legalism and therefore adds nothing to faith but obedience is part of faith...faith is an obedient work. John made it clear as to how we obey Christ. All the commandments of Christ are condensed into 2 commandments. 1 John 3:22-24 "And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." We don't go out with the thinking we can please Christ in any other way but by Believing, and Loving one another. It's the Holy Spirit that does the work through us, that is what's pleasing to Christ. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2022 19:58:47 GMT -8
You HAVE to lower Jesus’ commands. You HAVE to change them.
Because Jesus said to be perfect and keep the Laws, and even a thought sin makes you worthy of hell.
If you lower and change it, how much can you lower and change everything that Jesus says?
Where does Jesus SAY you can lower and change his commands?
How much do you lower and change them, and how do you justify it?
Where does Jesus say “Just doing the best you can is enough.”
Some try to say, “Well, if you repent then that makes everything ok.”
But even if you can somehow push a “reset” button just by repenting (and I don’t think repentance is enough to make anyone holy, anyone can just say “sorry”), you won’t even have short stretches of perfection, you will be in a constant state of just repenting, and never reach the perfection Christ commands.
There are many verses speaking of the Law in a way of WARNING, of danger as a negative and false way to salvation. If a person takes the Bible seriously, they have to set up a whole new system of “Law” that is A-Okay, and make the negative warnings towards the Law something different altogether. They MUST change the meaning of Law so they can explain away all the verses saying we can’t be justified by the Law and we are dead to the Law.
Salvation by works is a real error that promotes pride in our achievements instead of simple helpless trust in what Christ did on the Cross.
This is something with a real meaning, and something that Galatians said can even cut us off from Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Aug 24, 2022 1:47:36 GMT -8
you defeat your only argument when you try to attack people as following luther. when that is far from the truth. We are saved by grace through faith (we are not even saved BY faith, but THROUGH IT not works. If it is grace, it is no longer of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. You say you do not preach legalism, yet here you are once again claiming we are saved by our deeds (works, or obaying a set of rules) I would maybe suggest something, If your going to own something, Own it. Don't deny it.. A general search of the internet I made showed that faith only is accredited to Martin Luther. I am only repeating that general consensus. But it does not matter to me who it is accredited to we know Jesus Christ did not teach such an idea. Jesus Christ taught: believing saves, Jn 8:24 repentance saves, Luke 13:3 confession saves, Mt 10:32-33 baptism saves, Mk 16:16 Note from Christ's own words belief alone will not save the impenitent. Belief alone cannot save those who refuse to confess Him. Belief alone cannot save those who are not water baptized for remission of sins. You cited Rom 11:6. The 'works" in the verse refers to works of merit and is not referring to obedience to God. Psul already spoke of "obedience unto righteousness" and how those Romans "obeyed from the heart" then freed from sin/justified. In Rom 2 Paul spoke of the need to obey in repenting to be saved, in Rom 10 obey by confessing to be saved. As a matter of fact, the immediate context of Rom 11:6 cannot refer to obedience for we see from the context God's people have always been those who OBEYED Him. In OT times those who were God's people were the ones who obeyed by not bowing to Baal (v4) and God's people in this present time are those who obey the gospel (v5) (see also 2 Thess 1:8). That "remnant" of Jews were the 3000 from Acts 2 who obeyed God by repenting and being baptized. Out of all the Jews, just that small remnant who obeyed God were God's people by election of grace of the NT not by flawless works of merit as required by the OT law of Moses (v6). That thinking came from the Roman Catholic Church. If your going to rely on the internet to determine the most important subject you will ever have to make a decision on (eternal life) then I am seriously worried my friend. The history of the world shows that the truth is not something that most people agree on. The crouwd or the masses is usually a false truth, a half truth or no truth at all. Wide is the gate to destruction and many there are that go through. Why did Jesus fail to mention to nicodemus that he needed to be saved in John 3. Why did he fail to mention it is John 4, 5 6 or any other place. Why did he fail to mention it in the same conversation in another gospel, but only mentions it in the controversial ending of mark 16? If baptism was so important. You would think (I would anyway) that Jesus mentions it more than one time.. especially since he gave the gospel hundreds of times. Water baptism will not give you redemption of sins my friend, If water baptism is required them all OT believers will go to hell. Because ex crept for the priests and a gentile who wanted to be immersed into the judean faith. None of them were baptised. Salvation has not changed. Abraham was saved because he believed God. Noah was saved because he believed God. There wrks were a byproduct of their salvation. Not a precurser to their salvation. Amen works are works of merit. You my friend are trying to MERIT salvation by being water baptism and obeying other commands. Your following a catholic/jewish tradition of salvation by self righteous deeds.. Which will be rejected by God as a means of why you will be saved. There is only one work God will accept as payment for your sins, and that is Christs. |
|
