What is Legalism?

[Grailhunter]

I don't think God was saying an Israelite could take a virgin from the cities that were to be completely destroyed. That would instantly nullify the command to completely destroy those cities. So obviously, he is speaking about virgins in the cities where the plunder could be taken and not destroyed.

The words "except the virgins" was there. In one instance the men brought back virgins and non-virgins and Moses got mad and had them kill the non-virgins.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

There is a lot of non-sense there. Empty words that do not stand up to the truth.

See, Christians can only understand upholding the law as a literal, to the letter keeping of the law. They do not know how faith upholds the law without the necessity of being under the law because they do not know what being under the law means. Christians are not under the law, yet faith upholds the law of Moses. Paul taught both. No empty words here. The problem is in your understanding of how both can be true. The problem is in your definition of what it means to be under the law.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Compared to Christian morals the Mosaic Law is despicable.

Then God is despicable because God commanded that law.

 

[Grailhunter]

See, Christians can only understand upholding the law as a literal, to the letter keeping of the law. They do not know how faith upholds the law without the necessity of being under the law because they do not know what being under the law means. Christians are not under the law, yet faith upholds the law of Moses. Paul taught both. No empty words here. The problem is in your understanding of how both can be true. The problem is in your definition of what it means to be under the law.

I call that circle talk mumbo jumbo.....Uphold Christianity but don't actually believe in Christ and see what happens...You are talking nonsense now. So time to end this discussion.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

The words "except the virgins" was there. In one instance the men brought back virgins and non-virgins and Moses got mad and had them kill the non-virgins.

If that's true—that the rub is in the fact that they included non-virgins in the take—then Deuteronomy 21:10-11 makes it so Deuteronomy 20:16 means everything that breathes except choice virgins.

One thing I won't argue is the law has kept lawyers employed for centuries discerning the true meaning of the law. But like our New Covenant contentions I think the bulk of them are easily resolved by comparing scripture with scripture.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

I call that circle talk mumbo jumbo.....Uphold Christianity but don't actually believe in Christ and see what happens...You are talking nonsense now. So time to end this discussion.

No, don't leave. Explain how faith upholds the law, yet Christians are not under the law.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Rabbinical add-on judgement???....the Old Testament does not specify how or why or that it had an alternative source.

Actually, it does.....

8If a case is too difficult for you to judge, whether the controversy within your gates is regarding bloodshed, lawsuits, or assaults, you must go up to the place the LORD your God will choose. 9You are to go to the Levitical priests and to the judge who presides at that time. Inquire of them, and they will give you a verdict in the case.10You must abide by the verdict they give you at the place the LORD will choose. Be careful to do everything they instruct you, 11according to the terms of law they give and the verdict they proclaim. Do not turn aside to the right or to the left from the decision they declare to you. Deuteronomy 17:8-11​

And I'm sure that is what Jesus was referring to when he said this.......

2“The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy, burdensome loads and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Matthew 23:2-4
​

These are the judgments of the Rabbis down through the centuries that the Israelites added to the law of Moses. And it is these judgements, that were binding on the people of God, that the appearance of Jesus, the Head Rabbi, rescued God's people from, nailing them to the cross...

20If you have died with Christ to the spiritual forces of the world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its regulations: 21“Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”? 22These will all perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such restrictions indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-prescribed worship, their false humility, and their harsh treatment of the body; but they are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. Colossians 2:20-23
​

This is one of the ways that the Christian is not under the law. All believers have been set free from these misguided but well-meaning judgments designed to keep the people of God in compliance with the law. We gentiles don't understand this aspect of the law well because we are not Jews who have been in bondage to the multitude of these rabbinical judicial opinions put on the people of God.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Depending on how you look at it....Moses allowed....Is He he saying that the whole Old Testament is invalid....the whole Mosaic Law is invalid?....Is He saying Moses was the one that came up with the Laws, not God?

No. Moses himself makes it clear that the 10 C's are from God, and that the additional body of law also given to Moses at that time to give to the people are from God.

He did this also with the eye for eye...life for life Law.

Probably not. That law is included in the body of laws that God told Moses, "these are the laws you are to set before them." Exodus 21:1. I suppose he could of injected a few rabbinical judgments in it, but I'm inclined to think he did not. I think by the time the Israelites are about to enter into Canaan and Moses expounds on the law for them, his judgments and refinements of the law are present in the law.

 

[Nancy]

Oh this is so messed up!
If the word legalism does not appear in the scriptures how can you say...According to the scriptures it means....
And you say part of the meaning of legalism is the application strict stand of ethics....so when the Bible speaks of morals, are you one of those that think that, that is the legalism section? Do you think that Christ and the Apostles were legalists? Do you think that morality is optional? Do you think there is a liberal section to the Bible?

When Paul said Therefore by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
He is talking about Judaism, the Mosaic Law....not observing Christian morality. He is not saying not to be moral. What do you think Christianity is, a religion of immorality?

This is the twist that OSAS people put on the Bible. We are justified by Christ and no one is saying that morality is what saves us. But still the morals that were taught by Christ and the Apostle are what we should observe.

Hi Grail!
I think Enoch was maybe referring to those who label those who correct them through scripture, legalists. So, my guess is that he meant those who believe they are free to do whatever "they" think is right, even though not obeying scripture. I have been called a legalist before as, the person just would not accept the scripture, which was clear as day! Then it the "it's how YOU interpret it" so, they are actually dissing God and not you or I...JMHO

 

[Grailhunter]

No, don't leave. Explain how faith upholds the law, yet Christians are not under the law.

I am not going to explain it because it does not in the practical sense. You can give lip service to Christ too if you want. Not my way.
What is the correct response to a law? To be obeyed. Uphold hold the law? Is that when the State Trooper pulls you over for doing 70 in a 40 and you say to him, Thank you for your service.

I got to tell you that I do not have a good bedside manner for crazy....so move it on.

 

[amigo de christo]

Then God is despicable because God commanded that law.

Look at the sum of what they are implying .
It makes no sense at all . How could anything GOD ever have said , been despicable .
And JESUS HIMSELF would never make void the law . The law is truly spiritual and its now written on the hearts of the lambs .
The righteousness of the law is written upon our hearts .

 

[Grailhunter]

Look at the sum of what they are implying .
It makes no sense at all . How could anything GOD ever have said , been despicable .
And JESUS HIMSELF would never make void the law . The law is truly spiritual and its now written on the hearts of the lambs .
The righteousness of the law is written upon our hearts .

Does it make you feel Holy to say that?
Take Christianity and talk non-sense about it.
Want to see what the Apostle Paul said about the law....see posts 22 and 23 of this thread.
Religious rhetoric is no service to Christ, it confuses people.
I have a reputation for telling the truth, I am not going to pee down someone's back and tell them it is raining.
Now telling the truth is virtuous and take courage, but it can get you in trouble, ask Peter and Paul.

The law is truly spiritual.....this is garbage. The Law is physical. That ministry of death, engraved in letters on stone. To back a law that required killing a woman that was raped to make yourself feel holy is cowardice and self serving.

The truth will set you free and if you stand for truth, you stand with God.

 

[amigo de christo]

Does it make you feel Holy to say that?
Take Christianity and talk non-sense about it.
Want to see what the Apostle Paul said about the law....see posts 22 and 23 of this thread.
Religious rhetoric is no service to Christ, it confuses people.
I have a reputation for telling the truth, I am not going to pee down someone's back and tell them it is raining.
Now telling the truth is virtuous and take courage, but it can get you in trouble, ask Peter and Paul.

The law is truly spiritual.....this is garbage. The Law is physical. That ministry of death, engraved in letters on stone. To back a law that required killing a woman that was raped to make yourself feel holy is cowardice and self serving.

The truth will set you free and if you stand for truth, you stand with God.

The true law is spiritual . I was not talking about the letter of the law .

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Who said it's an emotional show. That publican went away justified, God knowing it wasn't an 'emotional show'. Have you never been surely convicted of a certain sin of yours, or do you claim perfection?


I don't believe I ever said sorrow (contrition) was a necessity for genuine repentance.

I was not referring to the publican in particular, but teh general sense out there that people whoop up their emotions to show how sorry they are- God is not impressed.

And IU didn't imply that sorrow is something you mentioned. It was just a comment.

 

[Grailhunter]

The true law is spiritual . I was not talking about the letter of the law .

Does the phrase "true law" appear in the Bible?
God did not want Adam and Eve to know the Knowledge of good and evil. Was Christ wrong in tell us what was right and what was wrong? Should we continue to think that killing a raped woman is good and just? If we did kill a raped woman, would that be wrong? Is it lip service and hypocrisy to in anyway to support those actions?

There is a desire for some to combine Judaism and Christianity and Christ explained that that can only lead to ruin.

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

@Desire Of All Nations
613 Mosaic Laws....go learn them and you can come back and you will then be able to explain to me why Paul was against having them in Christianity.
Circumcision was an issue because it was the entry into Judaism and an obligation to keep the whole law.
Again...and again
Galatians 5:3-4 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

Christ warned us about trying to be in two different covenants.
Yeap Paul loved the law....referring to it as the the ministry of death, engraved in letters on stones.... LOL

Many believe that the phrase “New Testament” means New Text or New Book, when in fact the phrase “New Testament” means “New Covenant.” And there is a reason why the Old Testament is called the OLD Testament. Because it is the portion of the Bible that tells of the time when God’s people “ONCE” lived under the Laws of the OLD Covenants….the Old Agreements. As it is we are not living under two Covenants, two sets of Laws, or two religions. Christianity did not merge with Judaism.

Obviously Christ understood that as He explained that trying to do that would harm both religions. Mark 2:21-22 “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results. No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.”

Further more Paul made distinctions between those that are under the Law and those who are not under the Law, but rather faith. (Romans 3:19-21 & 4:14, 16, Galatians 4:21, 1 Cor. 9:20-21) The Old Covenants revealed the Holiness of God in the righteous standard of the Law. God promised his people that compliance to the Law would insure many Earthly rewards and his blessings. The New Covenant reveals the Holiness of God in His righteous Son. The New Testament contains those writing that reveals the Son of God and the New Covenant between God and Man. The New Covenant promises very few Earthly rewards but offers Forgiveness, Grace, Justification, Sanctification, Adoption, Glorification, Reconciliation with God, and Eternal Life.

Under the terms of the Old Covenant no flesh could be Justified. (Acts 13:38-41, Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16-21, 3:11) Because the Law itself brought about the wrath of God. But for those that have entered into the New Covenant with God….where there is NO Law, neither is there violation, (Romans 4:15) Christians are not under the Law but under grace. (Romans 10:4 Galatians 5:18) Because apart from the Law Sin is dead. (Romans 7:8) As Christians we serve God in the newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter of the Law. (Romans 7:6) Because Christ, our savior was the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone that believes in Him. (Romans 10:4, Eph. 2:15) We are Justified by faith apart from the Law. (Romans 3:28, 5:1)

The Apostle Paul referred to the Old Covenant and the Ten Commandments as a ministry of death and condemnation. Stating that the letter of the Law kills, but the spirit gives life, (2 Corinthians 3:1-9) and said that Jesus freed us from the curse of the Law. (Galatians 3:12-13) And said that the Law was only a shadow of the good things to come. (Hebrews 10:1) The Old Law was set aside because of its weakness and uselessness. Jesus being the mediator for us, in a better Covenant with God. (Hebrews 7:18-22 & 8:1-13 & 10:9) In Ephesians 2:15&16, Paul had this to say; “….by abolishing in his flesh the ENMITY, which IS the LAW OF COMMANDMENTS contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to DEATH THE ENMITY.

In Galatians Paul had a warning for those that seek to live under the Law or look to the Law as a moral guide. “You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace.” (Galatians 5:4) For those that look to the Laws for righteousness and thereby Sin under the Law, Hebrews has this to say; “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgement, and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES ……IT IS A TERRIFYING THING TO FALL INTO THE HANDS OF THE LIVING GOD. (Hebrews 10:26-31) Jesus also pointed this out in John 15:22. In Philippians, Paul called those people that still preached adherence to the Old Laws, dogs, evil workers and warned against false circumcision. (Phil. 3:2-14) In Titus, Paul warned against paying attention to those that preached Jewish myths and commandments of men. (Titus 1:13&14)

In John 8:17, Jesus indirectly implies that the Mosaic Law was not His Law saying, “Even in your law it has been written…”

And in verse 31&32 He indicates that to be considered one of His disciples, one most follow His word, and His word would set you free from the Law and Sin; “If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” And verses 34-36, go on to further illustrate that the Jewish Covenant and Laws made them slaves to Sin, but Jesus’ Covenant would set His people free of Sin and the Law. “Truly , truly, I say to you, everyone who commits Sin is the slave to Sin. “And the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. “If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. And verse 24 had already indicated that the Jews had no hope of salvation unless they accepted Jesus and His Laws. “I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your Sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your Sins.”

So are the Apostles saying that the Law was bad, or contrary to the promises of God? No! So what was the purpose for the Laws of Moses and the Ten Commandments? The Apostle Paul offers a few explanations for this. (Romans 15:4 & Galatians 3:17-29) “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” So as it is the phrase Ten Commandments does not appear in the New Testament.

You are attempting to project your own ignorance of what are Mosaic laws on to me, and it won't work. I thoroughly proved why your theology is built on a false idea of what Paul taught, and i'm not going to do myself a disservice by getting into a war of words with someone who is much too proud to realize they are wrong.

 

[robert derrick]

With civil laws that is very true.
But the Mosaic Law does not change.
Matthew 5:18-20
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So you are keeping the law of Moses?

 

[Grailhunter]

You are attempting to project your own ignorance of what are Mosaic laws on to me, and it won't work. I thoroughly proved why your theology is built on a false idea of what Paul taught, and i'm not going to do myself a disservice by getting into a war of words with someone who is much too proud to realize they are wrong.

Posts 22 and 23 for what Paul actually said about the law.
I did not say it....Paul said it. Christ said it. Judaism is still a functioning religion, if you want to be a Jew, be a Jew. But Judaizers were the enemy of Paul and Christ. And the Jews yelled Crucify Him! Crucify Him! “His blood be on us and on our children.”

Within Christianity it is called the Blood Curse and if you know anything about Jewish history it was fulfilled...and not just with the holocaust but all through their history.

Personally I do not care....I am a firm believer in freedom of religion. I am multi-denominational so I am tolerant.
Truth is a wonderful thing! But it can be startling, offensive, and even scary sometimes....But what is the alternative....putting on your rose colored glasses and sticking your head in the sand...."There is no place like home! There is no place like home!"

 

[Grailhunter]

So you are keeping the law of Moses?

No...I am not a Jew.

 

[robert derrick]

Legalism or legalistic are not Bible terms, so I do not really like to speculate on what it would be Biblically. When most in the church today call someone a legalist, it is because they dare to call something they or someone they know sinful. I mean, don't they know we are not under the law anymore but grace? Don't they know we are not to judge people? The whole anti-legalism doctrine is false.

That being said, there was a legitimate controversy that took place in the early church concerning certain aspects of the Law of Moses, and if it pertained to the gentile converts. The laws that were in question were over things like circumcision and the need to abstain from certain foods. These were laws that were given to Israel to show a distinction between them and the unclean and idol worshipping gentile nations around them. It was determined that gentile believers did not have to do those things, and with good reason. What was once unclean, God had now cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ, and gentiles were included in the plan of salvation. There is no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile, so you naturally would not observe laws of separation.

None of this meant that we could be lawless. You have several instances where Paul says that sinful behavior will keep us from having an inheritance in the Kingdom of God. This included all kinds of things like sexual immorality, murder, theft, etc. Even after the early church met, they said there were certain necessary things the Gentiles had to abstain from, but that is completely ignored by the anti-legalism crowd. Jesus did not rebuke the Scribes and Pharisees for being legalists, as people say. He said they were in Moses' seat. What he came against them for was hypocrisy, doing things to be praised by men, and refusing to enter into the Kingdom because of unbelief, and leading others into the ditch with them. All anyone has to do to see this is read the list of woes Jesus gives to the Scribes and Pharisees. The church today is teaching a lot of things that are not Biblical, and all anyone needs to do is take the time to carefully search it out in the scriptures.

Most modern believers today amidst the rampant liberal ideology of 'bad living, but good hearts' do see an accusation of the unrighteous to falsely accuse the God-fearing and commandment keeping believers.

However, both sides were represented in the days of the apostles:
1. Those referred to above that said let sin abound that grace may more abound.
2. Those who demanded keeping the law of Moses to be saved.

'Legalism' in both these cases are an abuse of grace and of law: by rejecting doing any works of the law, or by demanding works of law that no longer exist with God.

We are not saved by the works of the law, but rather are saved to fulfill the righteousness of the law of God, which includes repentance from dead works condemned by the law:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6)

The good but unsaved sinner does good things and are neighborly in life, without repenting from 'private' sins, that they say do not harm others. And so, the righteousness of God is not obtained through faith, because His righteousness is without sin between Himself and man, not moral standards between men themselves.

3. What I see most often is a 3rd type: Not just having to do with demanding law of Moses be kept for salvation's sake: Sabbath keeping, outward circumcision, etc...

But the more subtil and pernicious effort of bringing in completely new law, that God neither gave to Moses nor to His apostles: traditions and commandments of men, that are preached and minister for law of God and of Christ:

The great commandments of abstinence: no drinking, no women cutting hair, no mixed swimming, no theatres, no public dancing, no rock and roll, no smoking, no jewelry (Well, a wedding ring is ok. And yes, a graduate class ring. But that's it!), no tattooing, no shorts on men and now pants on women, no work on Sundays...

I.e. the great holinessers of our time, which Wesley basically started. Especially during the 1950's where 'holiness living' became an all-out obsession and battle to see who could be most 'holiness' in their lives 'for God'.

4. There is also the legalism of judging according to the letter, which is not wrong in itself: getting drunk is getting drunk, but this legalism uses the letter of the law to slay and to kill, without any regard to the Spirit of the law, which is to restore and rescue:

Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. (Gal 6)

Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5)

Judaizers were #2. Pharisees were #3 & 4. Epicurean and liberal 'Christians' are #1.

Legalism therefore to me is any use of the law, abuse of the law, and/or dismantling of the law of God, that confounds the grace of God and confuses the faith of Jesus, by wresting Scripture from where it belongs as written by God's prophets and apostles:

Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully. (1 Tim 1)