Behold
Well-Known Member
Not to be saved.
Water can't save you.
Dont trust in it, unless water died on the Cross for your sin.
Did it?
= THINK.
Legalism in religion
- Thread starter dev553344
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Not to be saved.
Water can't save you.
Dont trust in it, unless water died on the Cross for your sin.
Did it?
= THINK.
The reason you are water baptized will determine legalism.
Are you depending on another man to perform a ceremony on your behalf to complete your salvation?
If you are, that is legalism.
Trusting Jesus is not belief alone. Trusting Jesus when He said believe and be baptized is trust when you believe what He says, Mark 16:15-16.; John 3:5
Behold equates commandment keeping with legalism
Baptism is done from faith.
Baptism is an act of faith.
Jesus commands it I believe Him and obey. I am not a legalist.
Jesus gave a direct command to be water immersed.
To say it is not to be saved.
Implies one can disobey Gods command to be baptized and still be saved.
Jesus calls that lawlessness.
Behold is trying to be saved through disobedience of Gods commandments
If baptism is not essential, then Gods commandments are non-essential.
Why did God command it. If we don't have to obey Him? This is confusion
Sorry Titus, but if you make water baptism a requirement for salvation, your faith has turned to the works of another man to carry out that commandment for your salvation. That is salvation by works, and as Paul said, it is no longer Grace.
Behold
Well-Known Member
Teaching or BELIEVING that water baptism, commandment keeping, enduring to the end........any of this, = (as all this is what YOU DO)........is required by God to save you, : > REJECT's The Cross.<
= Think.
You teach obeying God is not required to be saved. Gods commandments non-essential
1John 2:4,
-He who says I know Him and does not keep His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him.
Ernest T. Bass
Well-Known Member
Below I posted an article on the term "legalism". It is interesting that the term legalism is not found in the BIble in Greek or English. It was coined after the time Luther came up with His idea of faith onlyism hence those who would not conform to this false idea were labeled "legalists". As the article points out, people generally define the term legalism anyway they want to, more specifically, they call you a legalist simply for not believing various relgious tenets as they believe. More frequently, the term is defined in a way that defies what the BIble teaches, that being, that obedence to God's will is define as "legalism" since obedience does not fit within their faith only tenets. I therefore would be a legalist since I believe, as the Bible teaches, that obedience to God is necessary to gain the initial promise of salvation and obedience is necessary to continue to possess the promise of salvation. If rejecting faith onlyism and believing obedience to God's will saves men makes me a legalist, then I am in good company for Christ would have been the biggest legalsit who ever lived, (Phil 2:8; Heb 5:8).
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.php
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.php
Last edited:
All of the commandments of Christ have to be taken in faith. Meaning that the flesh profits nothing, the doing of man accomplishes nothing for salvation.
I believe that Christ commands to be water baptized, but not to be saved, it is our confession that we have already been saved by Grace through faith in true repentance.
Water baptism for salvation is an act of works. You are depending on another to conduct a ceremony for your salvation.
You can't be saved without that person performing that ceremony on your behalf.
That is a salvation of works, plain and simple. You are obeying Christ through works, not of faith.
Ernest T. Bass
Well-Known Member
But the great commission requires "the work of another to carry out that command" of the great commssion to go, teach, baptize making disciples. Christianity is a taught religion and God through the great commission will have the gospel spread from person to person, generation to generation by the work of evangelizing. It takes the work of one person, either a minister or any Christian, to carry out the command of the great commission whereby other people might be saved. 1 Cor 1:21 is through the work of preaching that men are saved for no one can be saved apart from hearing the gospel of Christ and obeying it, 2 Thess 1:8. Paul's missionary trips were great works to take the gospel to the lost, many of which would have died lost if Paul had not done the work in taking the gospel to them.
Therefore since salvation requires the work of preaching/carrying out the great commission, does that then make "salvation by works" not of grace? NO! No more than one person baptizing another person make salvation by works and not of grace also.
Last edited:
Ernest T. Bass
Well-Known Member
Jesus saves no one face to face today.
All today are saved by other men playing a part in another's salvation,
James 5:20,
-let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.
Every day I see a post from Ernest T. Bass always brightens my spirit.
agape love brother
Ernest T. Bass
Well-Known Member
It's a matter of where your faith is placed.
My faith for salvation is 100% in the finished work of Christ on the Cross and His resurrection.
My water baptism is confessing the name of Christ as the source of my salvation.
Water baptism is in no way is the source of my salvation, but the picture of my having been spiritually baptized into the death of Christ.
Making water baptism a requirement for salvation is faith in the work of a ceremony, performed by man on your behalf.
Rom. 11:6
"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."
If you make water baptism a requirement for salvation, then the person who baptized you can claim they made your salvation possible.
That is not Grace, and it cannot ever be Grace!
Ernest T. Bass
Well-Known Member
This does not address the issue you raised. If one person baptizing another perosn creates a "works based salvation" then it is also true that one person working in carrying out the great commssion to teach and baptize others to save them also creates a works based salvation.
If Rom 11:6 says what you think it does, then that means since salvation is obtained by carrying out the great commission by the works of teaching and baptizing, then salvation is no more grace.
Obviously the "works" in the verse does not refer to works of obedience in carrying out the great commission, hence Paul was NOT contrasting grace against obedience. For even in the context, God's people were those who OBEYED by not bowing to the false idol Baal. In NT times God's people are those who obey by election of grace by obeying the gospel of Christ (2 Thess 1:8). Paul in the context was contrasting grace from works of perfect, flawless law keeping. The OT law required the work of flawless law keeping to be justified by it whereby if the Jew could keep the OT law perfectly then his salvation would not be of grace but merited by his own perfect works.
"No amount of works can blot out sins already committed. Forgiveness is a matter of grace, no matter how many conditions one must fulfill in order to be forgiven. If a man's works had always been perfect, he would have no sins to be forgiven; he would stand justified on his own merit. There is no grace when a man merits justification. Works by which a man merits justification, and commands which one must obey to be saved, are distinct matters. It is unfortunate that many religionists cannot, or will not, see this distinction, which should be plainly seen by any Bible reader. Because they fail to make this distinction they conclude that a sinner must do nothing in order to be saved. A man has no real understanding of either works or grace when he thinks conditions of forgiveness make salvation a matter of works and not of grace. Nothing that a sinner can do merits salvation. Many things are of grace, and yet conditional. Is anyone so simple as to think Naaman's healing of leprosy was any less a matter of grace because he had to dip seven times in the river Jordan? Is any so blind that he cannot see that giving sight to the blind man was a matter of grace, even though he had to go wash in the pool of Siloam? If so, he needs his eyes opened as badly as did the blind man." Whiteside, Romans Commentary
Similar threads
- Poll
