|
Post by Giller on Aug 30, 2019 9:10:18 GMT -5
Today the word legalism is used to point to anything one might disagree with you. If you preach against sin, some might call that legalism. Here is a definition of the word legalism, that I have found: (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/legalism)(le•gal•ism (ˈli gəˌlɪz əm) n. 1. strict adherence to law or prescription, esp. to the letter rather than the spirit. 2. the theological doctrine that salvation is gained through good works. )This is what is said, in a certain definition.
When I think of the word legalism, I think of the word legality. There are laws in the bible, and do's and don'ts, but of course salvation is not through say the law, but through Christ, but to preach against sin itself, is not wrong, it is what God wants us to do. The law itself is not sin, what would be sin, is seeking to be saved by the law itself, rather than Christ. So if the word legalism is used to say that you are not saved by the law itself, that is true, but to say the law itself is sin, that is not true, and many if you just mention a biblical law or precept, they will call you a legalist, which they have no clue about what they are talking about. It is like the law of God is repugnant to them, which is wrong. If you parse the Bible on technical terms as if it’s a contract, you’re acting like a lawyer, and that’s what legalism is. You can use legalism to preach any doctrine. It has nothing to do with righteousness. Christ is our righteousness, and he wants to make the word alive in us, to were it becomes natural. And through the Spirit of God, and the love of God, the word of God becomes real, and it is no longer being obeyed as a law. Our faith is in the finished work of Christ, and not in the laws we obey, but as we properly place our faith in Christ and him crucified, then it will lead us to properly obey the word, not as a law, but to were it is real in our lives.
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 30, 2019 9:20:21 GMT -5
I think the in the world, not of the world is based on John 15:19.
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
To me, "in the world, not of the world," is a call to live separated unto Christ, even though you physically dwell in the world.
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Aug 30, 2019 9:22:41 GMT -5
And that is true any doctrine can be preached in a wrong way, or through a wrong spirit.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Aug 30, 2019 9:25:43 GMT -5
I think the in the world, not of the world is based on John 15:19.
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
To me, "in the world, not of the world," is a call to live separated unto Christ, even though you physically dwell in the world. The part they conveniently leave off is “the world hateth you.” If the world doesn’t hate you, then clearly you belong in it. It’s being at a party where you are talking and laughing with everyone there, then you turn around and say you don’t really fit in with them. It doesn’t work that way.
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 30, 2019 9:27:47 GMT -5
To me, saying a person is a carnal Christian is like saying lukewarm, but we know what their end will be. They will be spewed out. I have used that language, but not in a positive light. It is true that this term is not in scripture, and I have seen it used by some to excuse sinful professing Christians.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Aug 30, 2019 9:45:11 GMT -5
To me, saying a person is a carnal Christian is like saying lukewarm, but we know what their end will be. They will be spewed out. I have used that language, but not in a positive light. It is true that this term is not in scripture, and I have seen it used by some to excuse sinful professing Christians.
You don’t find that kind of talk in Christian teaching before the 1950s. A babe in Christ, yes, but not blatant carnality tolerated as a mere “flaw.” This was the doorway that ultimately brought in a path for faith plus nothing. Stack the church attendance rolls with wild party animals on their second and third marriage, cover them with talk of “lukewarm” or “carnal believers” to shut up complaints from the holiness folk, and then ultimately justify this by saying they are saved by faith. Preachers warned against the early stages of this long before David Wilkerson. The groundwork was laid for generations. Spurgeon said a hundred years ago that churches will stop feeding sheep and start entertaining goats. All they had to do was drum up some Biblical cliches like “lukewarm” to get it past the holiness crowd.
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 30, 2019 9:51:03 GMT -5
To me, saying a person is a carnal Christian is like saying lukewarm, but we know what their end will be. They will be spewed out. I have used that language, but not in a positive light. It is true that this term is not in scripture, and I have seen it used by some to excuse sinful professing Christians.
You don’t find that kind of talk in Christian teaching before the 1950s. A babe in Christ, yes, but not blatant carnality tolerated as a mere “flaw.” This was the doorway that ultimately brought in a path for faith plus nothing. Stack the church attendance rolls with wild party animals on their second and third marriage, cover them with talk of “lukewarm” or “carnal believers” to shut up complaints from the holiness folk, and then ultimately justify this by saying they are saved by faith. Preachers warned against the early stages of this long before David Wilkerson. The groundwork was laid for generations. Spurgeon said a hundred years ago that churches will stop feeding sheep and start entertaining goats. All they had to do was drum up some Biblical cliches like “lukewarm” to get it past the holiness crowd. I understand what you are saying, but unlike "carnal Christian," lukewarm is in the Bible and is speaking of members of a congregation of believers.
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 30, 2019 9:56:22 GMT -5
The Lord just reminded me that carnal Christians are mentioned in the Bible in 1 Corinthians 3:3. Paul calls members of the church at Corinth carnal.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Aug 30, 2019 9:58:42 GMT -5
The lukewarm thing has been stretched beyond the point of all recognition. The way it was taught in churches even back in the 70s/80s is not how it was taught by old timers. What we call lukewarm today is what Paul would have called blasphemy.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Aug 30, 2019 9:59:33 GMT -5
The Lord just reminded me that carnal Christians are mentioned in the Bible in 1 Corinthians 3:3. Paul calls members of the church at Corinth carnal.
Yes, and I mentioned this in my long post. They were carnal because they were divided over the loyalty to the apostles, not because they were party animals.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Aug 30, 2019 10:04:12 GMT -5
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. — 1 Corinthians 3:2-6
A clever group of denomination bosses spun this into “he cheated on his wife because he’s carnal” to give an answer to their holiness opponents. This is historical fact. Christian ministers a hundred years ago would be aghast by what’s happened.
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 30, 2019 10:05:54 GMT -5
The Lord just reminded me that carnal Christians are mentioned in the Bible in 1 Corinthians 3:3. Paul calls members of the church at Corinth carnal.
Yes, and I mentioned this in my long post. They were carnal because they were divided over the loyalty to the apostles, not because they were party animals. Yes. Those people are perverting scripture. Party animals are children walking according to the flesh, and they shall have no inheritance in the Kingdom of God.
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 30, 2019 10:07:25 GMT -5
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. — 1 Corinthians 3:2-6 A clever group of denomination bosses spun this into “he cheated on his wife because he’s carnal” to give an answer to their holiness opponents. This is historical fact. Christian ministers a hundred years ago would be aghast by what’s happened. I agree.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Aug 30, 2019 10:15:54 GMT -5
I must take care of some household chores today. What I’d like to do is return this evening and post further on Paul’s teaching about carnal things. He taught much about spiritual discernment that didn’t build doctrines on fleshly thinking. Rejecting the material, elemental things of life to instead learn how to THINK in spirit. Well-intentioned religious doctrine can come from the flesh and be wrong. It had nothing to do with deliberate sinful lifestyles.
Lord willing we can further discuss.
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 30, 2019 10:18:43 GMT -5
I must take care of some household chores today. What I’d like to do is return this evening and post further on Paul’s teaching about carnal things. He taught much about spiritual discernment that didn’t build doctrines on fleshly thinking. Rejecting the material, elemental things of life to instead learn how to THINK in spirit. Well-intentioned religious doctrine can come from the flesh and be wrong. It had nothing to do with deliberate sinful lifestyles. Lord willing we can further discuss. That is an important topic. I look forward to it.
|
|