What is Legalism? [Archive] - Prophecy Fellowship Forums

Jael

July 31st, 2003, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by glorymj
Legalism is following commandments and precepts in the bible (especially in "gray" areas) as a matter of salvation or as a "test" of righteousness. And/or applying this "test" to others. There is only one way to salvation.

When you adhere to a "gray" area out of love and obedience to the Lord, that is not legalism, it is showing love to your Creator.

I agree; however, one person's gray area may be another person's clear commandment...for example, some people read 1Cr 11:5 and believe it is a clear direction that women should cover their heads when prophesying and praying. They do not see a gray area because the scripture seems to be clear to them. Such people are often called legalists; however, holding a stricter or more literal interpretation of scripture does not a legalist make. We are called to be obedient, so it follows that someone who believes there is a clear teaching in scripture on a certain topic, will also encourage others to see that truth.

Some people read Jesus' teaching regarding divorce and remarriage and believe that marital infidelity is the only acceptable circumstance in which a divorced person may remarry. Others read it and believe that remarriage is never allowed. The person with the stricter interpretation is not necessarily being a legalist - they simply have a different understanding of the scripture. If they are defending their point of view scripturally (even if others of us do not agree with how they are applying the scriptures), we should engage them on the merits of the argument - scripture to scripture, not stoop to calling them legalists or assume they are trying to be a "better Christian".

I believe the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. Someone who promotes so-called gay theology would tell me I am in error and they would probably call me a legalist. Yet to me, there is no gray area there...the scriptures are clear and it is not legalism to uphold what they teach. Too often, we use the word "legalism" to describe a view that is stricter than we are comfortable with, especially when we don't want to do the work needed to refute the argument scripturally.

Sojourner

July 31st, 2003, 01:08 PM

Matthew 11:29-30
Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

Legalism is when we load another believer's yoke down with burden. Those burdens come in the form of our own personal convictions. God works with each believer individually, it is not our job to add to the burden of one another.

Hyssop

July 31st, 2003, 01:24 PM

It is interesting to read on farther in Romans 14 (thanks Christine:): ) First it talked about accepting those with weaker faith and not judging other Christians because only they are themselves accountable before God.
Then at the very end Romans 14, it basically says that whatever you believe about these things (gray areas?) to keep between you and God. That was enlightening for me.

It is a great comfort to know that the person who loves his fellow man has already fulfilled the law.

I gather we are to not put stumbling blocks in front of each other, nor are we to pass judgment on disputable matters. Because peace, joy in the Holy Spirit and anyone serving Christ in this way is already pleasing to God.

I liked what was said about adding to anothers burden or yoke.

delilah2

July 31st, 2003, 01:35 PM

Jael, I think what you said:
Too often, we use the word "legalism" to describe a view that is stricter than we are comfortable with, especially when we don't want to do the work needed to refute the argument scripturally.
is right on the money. In His Love, April

AnotherOldGuy

July 31st, 2003, 02:33 PM

As often used, "legalism" is just a term thrown around to justify one's behavior - to put the 'fault' on someone else.

When I pointed out "Thou shalt not commit adultery" to my ex, she played the 'legalism' card. "You're just being a legalist - God knows how I feel..."

When rebuking the Pharisees, Jesus got on them not for following the law, but for not understanding God's principles - as well as adding new law to what God said.

(Mat 5:21) "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'

(Mat 5:22) But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Jesus didn't say that there was anything wrong with following the "Do not murder" commandment to the letter - but He was disappointed that the concept didn't carry over to how people were treated. He was against people mindlessly following the law.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" is not limited to sex. Do not allow anyone or anything have priority over your spouse.

We point out the "Do not call anyone father". "Well, He really didn't meant [/i]that[/i]." Of course, He wanted us to understand the principle of what He was saying - God is our 'father'; the One who deserves our respect and devotion. But nothing in scripture remotely implies that He wasn't serious about not calling religous leaders 'father'.

That said, "legalism" could be considered the requirement to follow anything in scripture. As far as salvation goes, that's technically correct, I suppose - all you need is Christ.

However, these verses keep coming to mind:

(John 14:15) "If you love Me, keep My commandments.

(John 14:23,24) Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

For myself, I kinda try to be a 'correct' legalist. Not a mind-numb 'this is what it says' thing, but try to seek and follow the letter and the intent of the Lord's commands.

For others, I give scripture, my thougths on it, and my prayers. It is their responsibility to seek God's leading for them. But typically they seek their friends' or church's opinion.

Legalism is when we load another believer's yoke down with burden. Those burdens come in the form of our own personal convictions. God works with each believer individually, it is not our job to add to the burden of one another.

That sounds real good, but is it really true? Paul says we are to teach, rebuke, correct and discipline each other. It may be true if we are trying to impose our thoughts on someone else, but what may be construed as 'adding burden' to another is really pointing out the burden they already have and are not aware of it. For all you know, God is using you to work on that person.

So, when I'm given a label (not too often 'legalist'), usually 'fundamentalist' or 'Bible-thumper' I just grin and go with it - 'cause I've probably just touched a nerve that God's exposed.

Sojourner

July 31st, 2003, 02:55 PM

Posted by AnotherOldGuy
That sounds real good, but is it really true? Paul says we are to teach, rebuke, correct and discipline each other. It may be true if we are trying to impose our thoughts on someone else, but what may be construed as 'adding burden' to another is really pointing out the burden they already have and are not aware of it. For all you know, God is using you to work on that person.
I agree that we are to teach, rebuke, correct and discipline each other, when it comes to matters that are fundamental to the gospel of Christ. What I am talking about is putting the burden on another believer to live their Christian life according to your personal interpretation. If someone puts onto another believer their beliefs regarding the gray ares (i.e. attending certain movies, drinking alcohol, dressing in a certain way), they are adding to someone else's burden.

Taking on the yoke of Christ means following His example. If we conduct our lives from a position of love (loving God first and loving our neighbors as ourselves), legalism would not be a problem.

DeeLeeKay

July 31st, 2003, 03:02 PM

Legalism to me is forcing people to obey the "letter of the law" rather then the "spirit of the law".

Example;

Forcing a women to remain in an abusive marriage.

The "letter of the law" tells us that divorce is not allowed except for sexual immorality. The "spirit of the law" is to love one another. How can we force a women to endure abuse if we love them?

Wileyzmuse

July 31st, 2003, 03:10 PM

"I desire mercy not sacrifice." from the NT, I believe says it all.

Jesus was constantly rebuking the Pharisees for rigidly holding to tradition, without any mercy for each other or anyone else. For them, salvation was a matter of mindless actions and heavy laws that resulted in death for those who failed to walk the line.

I believe legalism is a spirit, more than any specific action. Obedience is not legalism because it comes from the desire to please God. Legalism begins when we equate our actions with salvation and we become enforcers of ourselves and others. We forget the heart, which is what God looks at.

An example...when fasting, God is showing me that there is more than one way to fast. I could give up sweets for a week; or fast from all food for a day, or more, but still drink juice or other combinations. I've fasted from smoking cigarettes, during which time God delivered me from the addiction. I have to be careful to listen to God about how to fast, or I will be way harsh and legalistic in how I believe it should be done and my fragile, human relationship with food can get disorted. God expects us to seek Him, even when we are doing something for the millionth time, not just once in awhile or in the beginning.

Ok, that's about enough blathering on.

:D:

Hyssop

July 31st, 2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Sojourner
I agree that we are to teach, rebuke, correct and discipline each other, when it comes to matters that are fundamental to the gospel of Christ.

Taking on the yoke of Christ means following His example. If we conduct our lives from a position of love (loving God first and loving our neighbors as ourselves), legalism would not be a problem.

Well said!

Q: What are the fundamentals to the Gospel that we should discipline each other about? Thanks ahead of time :):

cameron222

July 31st, 2003, 05:56 PM

To me legalism is condemnation. We deserve condemnation but Jesus became our substitute so we would not have to be condemned.

I am amazed at the 1,000s of laws on the books for our society that are designed to keep wicked man in line. Man will not do the right thing and thus needs laws and regulations to try and force his behavior in the right direction.

Grace loves anyway......despite faults and disobedience.

Legalism holds one accountable and meets out punishment based on behavior.

antsinmypants

July 31st, 2003, 09:36 PM

Main Entry: le·gal·ism
Pronunciation: 'lE-g&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1838
1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice>
2 : a legal term or rule

Main Entry: le·gal·ist
Pronunciation: -list
Function: noun
Date: 1646
1 : an advocate or adherent of moral legalism
2 : one that views things from a legal standpoint; especially : one that places primary emphasis on legal principles or on the formal structure of governmental institutions

Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com/)

Matthew 23...

John 7:19 - Did not Moses give you the Torah, and yet none of you keepeth the Torah? Why go ye about to kill me?

1 Timothy 1
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; 2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. 3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. 5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: 6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; 7 Desiring to be teachers of the Torah; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. 8 But we know that the Torah is good, if a man use it rightly; 9 Knowing this, that the Torah is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are heedless of Torah and rebellious, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine...15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Hebrews 10:21-31

James 2

1 John 3

GloryMJ : 1 Corinthians 7:39 - The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

That doesn't mean she has to stay WITH him, but that she is still bound by all the pertinent laws to him-- however long he lives.
Doesn't mean she has to undergo any of his abuses (Physical/mental etc)

glorymj

August 1st, 2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by antsinmypants
GloryMJ : 1 Corinthians 7:39 - The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

That doesn't mean she has to stay WITH him, but that she is still bound by all the pertinent laws to him-- however long he lives.
Doesn't mean she has to undergo any of his abuses (Physical/mental etc) ???:confused I'm not sure why you said this/directed this at me? I guess it's just too early in the morning... I need some coffee... :pound

edited to fix spelling errors.. yep too early.. :laugh

Workfromhomemom

August 1st, 2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
There seems to be various definitions of the word "legalism" on this board. Folks who think that those who call for holiness and seperation from the world are "legalists". Folks who think those who hold to the tithe are "legalists". I'm not stating here which is what... but most of you know where I tend to lean on these issues...

I'd be interested in hearing from everyone what the definition of "LEGALISM" is... the Biblical definition.

Read Galations. That pretty much sums up the idea. But, remember, Paul was dealing in that book with only one aspect of legalism, and we must understand the principle in order to apply it to other things. What was the principle? Circumcision (or any other fleshy act) was supposedly needed as a supplement to one's belief and Paul rebuked that notion. We are "complete in him".

Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Christine is right, the entire chapter of Romans 14 is about judging and judging comes from a legalistic mindset.

Romans 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.

We really do make grace of no effect by mixing in ANY works of any kind.

Paul was given to reveal doctrine for the Body of Christ, so only confusion results by folks going back to the Gospels (and the "works" emphasis there) and trying to apply it to now.

Side note: some churches who are clear as to salvation by faith, then immediately lapse back into legalism for sanctified living. Paul again makes clear that WE live Christlike because we WANT TO, not because we have some sort of requirement on our head. Again, Romans 14 applies as we are not to be stumbling blocks to those who have not believed yet.

:):

jenniofYahushua

August 7th, 2003, 09:23 AM

hello!

i would like to start by saying the term " legalism or legalistic" is never mentioned in scripture! these are words however that are tossed at anyone who stands up for pure living and obedience to the Lord according to the word. the opposite of being legal is being illegal or agasint the law- lawless- This is however spoken of in scripture alot! and ooooo baby this is not a good thing to be. in truth there is nothing wrong with being " legalistic" stricktly according to scripture as this means u hold fast to what the word DOES say and you dont walk around lawless hating the commadments and sinning.
what the pharsees were was a differnt kind of legalism- theres was STRICT teaching of adherance to tradition that added too and went against the Law of the Lord. This was a bondage! the Lords law is NOT bondage when we walk after the Spirit, but the pharsees added laws to the Lords laws and made laws agasint the Lords laws then required men to follow THEIR ways over and above the Lords.
the Spirit of the law is never contrary to the Letter of the Law~ often people like to say it is so they can get away with sinning agasint the word and blaming it on the Spirit. the Spirit of the law gives us the ability to obey the Law in LOVE and the Spirit of the law EXCEEDS the requirements of the letter of the law. - If you have only the letter and you dont walk in the Spirit the letter will kill you because you in your flesh cannot obey God. To expect those without the Spirit to obey the Law is trouble, this is why we can see the sins the world is doing but we cannot hold them to the standard of the word and judge them by it- we can only judge the Spirit filled brethern by this because they have been given the Spirit by which they can obey if they choose.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

i would like to comment to the post a few above this one about the Spirit of the law and letter and bout abuse in a marrage.
i would say this to you, our Lord taught us by the Spirit when he came in flesh to die for us, He knew woman get abused and will continue to be and He did not say this was an acceptable reason for divorce. to say this is only the letter is to say the Lord didnt walk in the Spirit. in this matter the Lord took the letter of the law that said you can get divorced, and he said by the Spirit that there is only one reason for divorce that is acceptable. - it is true the Lord wants us to have peace, but that in no way means we get to get out of trial, abuse, persection etc... Our peace is to be in Him. He tells us not to fear the man who seeks to kill our flesh but fear HIM who can kill our flesh and spirit in fire! having a husband who beats you even unto death ( while terrible) and you enduring it for the sake of the word that the Lord gave not to divorce over it, is no differnt than being torturned unto death by someone because you dont deny the name of the Lord and go agasint His word. It is not these things we are to fear and have care of and when we suffer wrongfully we are to praise the Lord for our reward is in heaven. the Lord will give us NOTHING beyond what we are able to handle. we should stand firm that the word is the word and the Spirit of the law never leads one to disobey the word- ever! if a spirit is leading a person to disobey the word for this reason or that , that spirit is not the Lords!

If we can say to a woman " the Spirit of the law would have you leave this abusive marriage because we are given to peace"
we could also say " hey deny the Lord to the antichrist who wants to kill your flesh cause we are given to peace"
this just isnt the way the Spirit of the law works~

DeeLeeKay

August 7th, 2003, 10:23 AM

jennie,

Let me ask a question. Are you saying that to love a women who is being abused is to let them be beaten to death by their husband?

Wileyzmuse

August 7th, 2003, 10:25 AM

Jennio - I think I understand what you are saying. I don't think anyone here wants lawlessness, or advocates ignoring God's commandments! Legalism, to me, is ridigly holding to laws without love or mercy. God's two most important commands are (1) love God with all heart, mind, soul & strength and (2) love one another.

If we are busy loving, there is little time left to police everyone about how they measure up according to the law. We should each be concerned with the plank in our own eye before setting out to remove a speck from another person's eye, etc.

You are right, obedience is good and right and expected, but more important is God's grace, which sets us FREE instead of making us slaves.

YSIC,
Patricia

antsinmypants

August 7th, 2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by DeeLeeKay
jennie,

Let me ask a question. Are you saying that to love a women who is being abused is to let them be beaten to death by their husband?

I was kinda wondering the same.

I don't agree in divorce-- but I do agree with seperation, restraining orders and staying alive.

antsinmypants

August 7th, 2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Wileyzmuse
Jennio - I think I understand what you are saying. I don't think anyone here wants lawlessness, or advocates ignoring God's commandments! Legalism, to me, is ridigly holding to laws without love or mercy. God's two most important commands are (1) love God with all heart, mind, soul & strength and (2) love one another.

If we are busy loving, there is little time left to police everyone about how they measure up according to the law. We should each be concerned with the plank in our own eye before setting out to remove a speck from another person's eye, etc.

You are right, obedience is good and right and expected, but more important is God's grace, which sets us FREE instead of making us slaves.

YSIC,
Patricia

James Chapter 4... and Jude
:wave

KrispyKritter

August 7th, 2003, 10:34 AM

To abuse your wife is to break your vows. I believe this falls under the "spirit" of the law. Jesus addressed adultry. Paul addressed adultry and an unbeliever abandoning a believing spouse. Abuse was never addressed... so now we get into a grey area. But the "spirit" of what was being said has everything to do with marital unfaithfulness. Abuse falls under unfaithfulness, for husbands are to be protectors and leaders.

I find that those who are dogmatic that abuse is not a viable reason for divorce are people who have never experienced it. If they had, they would have another perspective.

I'll go out on a limb here... if a Christian woman is being abused... I personally believe that divorce is an option, and remarriage is not a sin.

I only apply this to physical abuse. Not emotional or verbal abuse. Some husbands are jerks to their wives... but I think once you say that emotional or verbal abuse is ok for divorce, then any little unkind word becomes suspect and subject. Not good. But if a husband hits a wife... thats definately crossing the line.

I believe that a Christian woman who has a physically abusive husband ... and has children, is putting those children at risk. I believe she has a responsibility before God to protect and remove those children. To not do so would surely be a sin.

Jael

August 7th, 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
To abuse your wife is to break your vows. I believe this falls under the "spirit" of the law. Jesus addressed adultry. Paul addressed adultry and an unbeliever abandoning a believing spouse. Abuse was never addressed... so now we get into a grey area. But the "spirit" of what was being said has everything to do with marital unfaithfulness. Abuse falls under unfaithfulness, for husbands are to be protectors and leaders.

I find that those who are dogmatic that abuse is not a viable reason for divorce are people who have never experienced it. If they had, they would have another perspective.

I'll go out on a limb here... if a Christian woman is being abused... I personally believe that divorce is an option, and remarriage is not a sin.

I only apply this to physical abuse. Not emotional or verbal abuse. Some husbands are jerks to their wives... but I think once you say that emotional or verbal abuse is ok for divorce, then any little unkind word becomes suspect and subject. Not good. But if a husband hits a wife... thats definately crossing the line.

I believe that a Christian woman who has a physically abusive husband ... and has children, is putting those children at risk. I believe she has a responsibility before God to protect and remove those children. To not do so would surely be a sin.

I agree Krispy, after some study and prayer, I have come to the following position:

Regarding the issue of abuse, I would treat it this way:

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Repeated abuse puts him in the category of an unbeliever - and an unbeliever who is no longer pleased to dwell with me.

1Cr 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

...

1Cr 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace.

There is more than one way to depart from a marriage:

chorizo {kho-rid'-zo}

1) to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one's self from, to depart

a) to leave a husband or wife

1) of divorce

b) to depart, go away

If he is abusing me, then I will treat him as an unbeliever who is no longer pleased to dwell with me.

DeeLeeKay

August 7th, 2003, 10:49 AM

jennie,

I, personally, believe there is a difference between a husband abusing you and the anti-chirst/world doing it.

In marriage you are joined in body AND SPIRIT to this man/women. I can't even begin to tell you the damage it does to the women and kids. I know first hand the damage it does to a family. My grandfather was extremely abusive and my grandmother stayed with her husband. The mental problems it caused my mother and the rest of her siblings was horrible. I still suffer from my mother's need for total control in her life as a result.

The Bible also tells a man how to treat his wife. With love and laying down his life for her.

Where are we told to join ourselves to the world/anti-christ?

Ibelong2Him

August 7th, 2003, 11:15 AM

Krispy you wrote,

I find that those who are dogmatic that abuse is not a viable reason for divorce are people who have never experienced it. If they had, they would have another perspective.

I disagree with you.

I HAVE been abused both physically and emotionally by my husband. I did take my children and leave our home, we went to the local womens shelter. If he had not repented and gone to marraige counseling with the pastor I would NOT have divorced him. I would have found an apartment and lived seperately from him until either he decided to change his behaviour or DIVORCED ME.

His divorcing me would have been his abandonment of me, not the abuse. The abuse was an outward sign that he was not in control of his own actions. And that his heart was not right with God. He did not 'leave' me or commit adultery, he committed an unacceptable act of violence (more than once) that hurt me very badly, but it was not adultery.

HOWEVER I am not putting myself in a glorified position in comparison to anyone reading this especially anyone who HAS divorced her husband for abuse.

In my situation I knew the Lord wanted me to stay in my marraige (not enduring abuse, He wanted me to forgive and trust Him that my husband would not abuse me again- and he hasn't).

I know the pain all too well, and sometimes the ONLY way to escape it is through divorcing him.

I believe that the Lord works in each person's situations differently, just as he does in all areas of our lives. Maybe if my husband were not a believer the Lord would have led me to believe that divorcing him would have been okay.

1Cr 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

1Cr 7:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

1Cr 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

1Cr 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

1Cr 7:20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

jenniofYahushua

August 7th, 2003, 02:22 PM

hello :D:

i do not beleive there is any case where " love " means going against what scripture clearly says because to us it seems justified. there fore i cannot condone any woman to divorce her husband over abuse - but only over adultary.

the Lord did not say abuse is a seperation of the two that were joined- therefore i will not step outside clear scripture to add.

the example i gave of abuse in a marrage and the enemy wanting to kill you was made on the basis of not fearing those who want to hurt your flesh ( or who do ) but only the Lord.

If we can endure death for messiah so that we are not seperated from HIM ( who is called our husband) then too ( if sadly it is the case)can we endure suffering maybe unto death to not be seperated from our earthly husband.

i am not saying a husband should abuse his wife, man are instructed in how to behave in marriage same as women are - and whether your husband is a beleiver or unbeleiver doesnt matter the word tells us if the unbeliving spouse wants to LEAVE then let them- it doesnt say if they leave peace, if they leave emotionally etc... if the abuser doenst wanna be in the marrage the abuser will leave.

the Lord is the creator and knows well what he instructed and what it did not and did include. i trust Him in that and stand on His word without adding my idea of ' love" to it since my idea of Love is the Lords way i dont run into problem there.

If we begin here to deside for ourselves AGAINST scripture- when divorce is justified, then we cannot stop or care about all other manner of ppls justifications- if one wants to say " well i belive it is only ok for phsycal abuse" you have just stepped outside of what the word says and therefore if someone wants to say " well he treats me bad he calls me names" to MANY emotional abuse is FAR worse then physical abuse. another may say ' he doesnt bring me flowers and woo me anymore " or another may say "i fell out of love with him"- once we see the words instructions, and begin to think we know better and can justify differnt, there is no stopping the level of justifying wrongly that can be done.

and lets think of this- we are told as wives if our husbands are unbeleivers to still submit to them that they may be won to the Lord by our chaste conversation in fear- maybe just maybe if one were to continue in this with an abusive husband with much prayer maybe He may be won to the Lord!What a great example! you dont fear him hurting your flesh but u fear the Lord, you submit to him and love him even when he is most hateful- maybe you will get killed physcally? sure but maybe He will come to the Lord and His soul will be saved!!!!!- one of these means nothing in the way of eternal life, the other means everything

DeeLeeKay

August 7th, 2003, 02:33 PM

jennie,

An abusive husband/father does more then hurt the flesh, it also distroys the spirit and soul of the abused. I know, I have been there. And it has taken many years to over come the abuse and hurt. In fact I am still working on it.

jenniofYahushua

August 7th, 2003, 03:13 PM

i am very sorry for the situation you were in. and i agree if one doesnt have the Lord or doesnt stand in him it can destroy the spirit. but i would not say this is true of a beleiver who puts ALL there trust in the lord. nor does it make it ok to divorce from it.
sometimes it is these things that make one stronger in the Lord than ever before.

DeeLeeKay

August 7th, 2003, 03:18 PM

jennie,

Have you ever been abused? I asked because you do not know the emotional/spiritual damage abuse does to a person.

glorymj

August 7th, 2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by jenniofYahushua
i am very sorry for the situation you were in. and i agree if one doesnt have the Lord or doesnt stand in him it can destroy the spirit. but i would not say this is true of a beleiver who puts ALL there trust in the lord. nor does it make it ok to divorce from it.
sometimes it is these things that make one stronger in the Lord than ever before. I'm sorry, but I must say this. I find this to be a very unloving and legalistic attitude. To tell a woman who is being abused (even to the point of DEATH!!) that she must stay and just take it. :tsk I honestly and fervently pray that you never have to put that conviction to the test. :(:

jenniofYahushua

August 7th, 2003, 03:53 PM

glory- i understand and expect to get that reaction , but i see it as far more unloving to tell a sister to disobey the word- i would rather be abused and faithful then not abused and in sin.
it was not unloving when the Lord told us to die for him, suffer for him, go to jail for him, give everything we have for him, hate ( love far less) our mother brother sister husband for him, this place isnt out home- every pain we have here is only for a short time then we will live where there is no more crying or suffering.
I love my husband so much that if he beat me half to death daily, it would be worth it all if in that time i was an example of the Lords love that he may be saved one day. and i love the lord enough not to sin to try and get out of a situation even one this terrible.

DeeLeeKay

August 7th, 2003, 03:59 PM

jennie,

You have no idea what you are saying. That is all I am saying. Abuse kills the body and spirit.

Wileyzmuse

August 7th, 2003, 04:23 PM

I have to add this because it defends Jennio's position. I grew up in a home where my mother was severely abused mentally and emotionally (2 suicide attempts) ~ she was humiliated in nearly every way, including blatant adultery and getting STD's from my dad's extramarital affairs. She did finally leave my father once the children were raised and gone from the house. I am overjoyed that she left him, and have never questioned her wisdom in doing so.

My mom also had a friend, Helen, who was married to a man who was awful to her, I believe in similar ways. He was cruel, and made fun of her faith. She learned over the years how to let go of her desire for him to be a Christian, and her desire even for a husband that was decent. Many many years later, he became so exasperated by her peaceful strength that he told her "I want what you have..." and he accepted Christ. This would not happen in all cases, and I would never advocate staying in an abusive marriage, but there are times when God gives a woman the grace to stay, and to be a witness to her husband.

Jennio also makes a strong point in that our time here is brief. Fleeting. We do need to carry our cross daily, and seek God's will above our own. Let me reiterate I'm not saying to stay in an abusive marriage...just that in certain cases (when physical lives are not in danger and the person feels equipped to handle it spiritually) it is an opportunity to be a witness.

Love in Christ Jesus,
Patricia

DeeLeeKay

August 7th, 2003, 04:34 PM

Wiley,

I am sure there are times a women is given grace to stay in an abusive relationship. Let me ask did these women have any children? What are they like?

Also, let me note here for clarity. I would never counsil a women to stay in an abusive relationship in case she was killed. I would feel like I held her down while the man beat her to death. Let me also add this; My younger sister was brutally beaten to death by a complete stranger. I know the damage this does first hand.

Wileyzmuse

August 7th, 2003, 04:40 PM

Donna I agree with you completely. The women in my post did have children, my mother had 4, and her friend Helen had one daughter (who never married, by the way.)

I am so sorry your sister was the victim of violence. The kind of pain it brings is beyond words, and I can feel it through your post.

Love in Christ Jesus,
Patricia

dusty

August 7th, 2003, 05:22 PM

Our peace is to be in Him. He tells us not to fear the man who seeks to kill our flesh but fear HIM who can kill our flesh and spirit in fire! having a husband who beats you even unto death ( while terrible) and you enduring it for the sake of the word that the Lord gave not to divorce over it, is no differnt than being torturned unto death by someone because you dont deny the name of the Lord and go agasint His word.
...i understand and expect to get that reaction , but i see it as far more unloving to tell a sister to disobey the word- i would rather be abused and faithful then not abused and in sin.
it was not unloving when the Lord told us to die for him, suffer for him, go to jail for him, give everything we have for him, hate ( love far less) our mother brother sister husband for him, this place isnt out home- every pain we have here is only for a short time then we will live where there is no more crying or suffering.
I love my husband so much that if he beat me half to death daily, it would be worth it all if in that time i was an example of the Lords love that he may be saved one day. and i love the lord enough not to sin to try and get out of a situation even one this terrible.

jenniofYahushua,

This is in effect questioning the sincerity, faithfulness and love for Christ of others who may be led to choose differently than you.

What we may be sure is correct for us is not necessarily sure nor correct for all saints as the Lord reveals His will in our lives individually. To His own master one stands or falls, and the Lord is able to hold His up. While discussion of varying views is welcomed, condemnation of others who may hold a different view than ours is frowned upon. A friendly reminder to keep this in mind as opinions and views are shared.

On the topic of situations that may be encountered -- some believe the word does not teach total passivism and some do. It's always sound to leave matters of conscience between one's Master and themselves.

:):

linuxpenguin

August 7th, 2003, 07:41 PM

I just had a conversation on this topic with some one else.

I wrote:

Language really gets in the way sometimes. There is more of an emphasis on the law in Messianic Judaism... an emphasis on the law being alive and active. While Gentile Christians incorrectly believe that law is dead and inactive, not understanding that while we are dead to the effects of the law while in Christ the law itself is not dead nor inactive. But the word legalism does have so many negative connotations that while it accurately describes heralding the righteousness of the law itself, it just means something entirely different to so many people. We need some new words.

And I feel this is so true. Gentile Christians have a tendency to think of the Law as basically, well, evil. Something designed to condemn us. However, the Law is Holy and Righteous and should be meditated on constantly. Then when Messianic Judaists talk about the Law and how it is Righteous they are condemned for replacing Christ with the Law, which is the farthest thing from the truth. Christ didn't come to replace the Law, he came to fulfill and complete the Law. The Law remains active and Holy and Righteous.

Paul informs us that the Law is our teacher. A teacher instructs it does not condemn. Violating the Law is what condemns us. And it was critical that we be taught that not one of us can keep God’s Holy and Righteous Law so that we could see what pathetic and fallen creatures we truly are and that God Himself has provided a way out from the curses of violating the Law. And that way out is through Christ, the only one who kept God’s Holy and Righteous Law. We are removed from under the curses of breaking the Law by Christ’s sacrificial death as the Law has no authority over the dead, and we are raised to a new life through the Resurrection of Christ. Does this render the Law inactive? Of course not. You are either in Christ or under the Law. The Law remains active and Holy and Righteous. And the curses for violating the Law remain active as well for those not in Christ.

I have more to say on this topic as well.

MindieRose

August 7th, 2003, 10:18 PM

I guess to me legalism is when one person is basically saying "this is what the Bible says, if you dont do this, or you do this wrong, you are going to hell" when it comes to things like head coverings and tatoos, or anything else controversial. Legalism is saying that everyone must do exactly what they do or they are wrong. Which, you know in a way is correct, become saved or go to hell, but since becoming saved is the ONLY thing that determines your salvation, to put other things like having a beer now and then up there with that is a sin. I think it is wonderful that some follow and obey the laws of the Torah, but to treat others as though they are horrible sinners if they dont is wrong, it is judging and the Bible says not to do that. There are things that are blatent sins, like the obvious homosexuality and witchcraft, which we can all agree are sins, but we have to trust that the Holy Spirit will guide us in the other areas, and in doing what we truely believe is right, we should get no condemnation from others. To put a rule on every single thing, right down to which way to hold a fork, is legalism.

jenniofYahushua

August 7th, 2003, 11:48 PM

~dusty- i have to say i absolutly disagree with most of what you said,first i would like to say, i am not giving " my discion or way" in this what so ever, i have stuck to exactly what the word says and since the Word is alive and died for us, walked in Spirit and truth and taught up by His Spirit i believe as the word says that HIS ways are that of Love. therefore i stand with the word in this no matter how I could justify it in my mind to be differnt. His ways are not our ways and often what is the truly loving thing, is exactly the oppostie of what we would do on our own. I have put no one down here but stated and stood on the word without compromise. I truly pray that none of us ever have to be in a situation of spousal abuse ever again, but it does happen, and i find sin to be worse then physical death. As far as ones own walk, i agree we all must answer to our Master for what we do and before His throne i dont be there to defend you nor you me- we are on our own with the Lord. However i find it completely unscriptural to suggest that the Lords goes against His word and tells His kids to break His word, depending on ones individual walk. Some people beleive in ' grey areas" of scripture - if we are going to say there are grey areas, then surely those areas are where there is no direct commad given for or against.- but in the word there are also numerous things that are not at all grey according to the Lord. Things that are absolutly layed out and this is one of those areas. grey areas only come in to things like this when one doesn t want to accept the word as written in love, for whatever reason.~ If in our walks we never feel the Lord is telling us to disobey His own word we best stop fast, call our flesh and fears in check, bind the enemy and know the Lord doesnt change and go agasint what He had written in His word.~

I guess to me legalism is when one person is basically saying "this is what the Bible says, if you dont do this, or you do this wrong, you are going to hell" when it comes to things like head coverings and tatoos, or anything else controversial. Legalism is saying that everyone must do exactly what they do or they are wrong. Which, you know in a way is correct, become saved or go to hell, but since becoming saved is the ONLY thing that determines your salvation, to put other things like having a beer now and then up there with that is a sin. I think it is wonderful that some follow and obey the laws of the Torah, but to treat others as though they are horrible sinners if they dont is wrong, it is judging and the Bible says not to do that. There are things that are blatent sins, like the obvious homosexuality and witchcraft, which we can all agree are sins, but we have to trust that the Holy Spirit will guide us in the other areas, and in doing what we truely believe is right, we should get no condemnation from others. To put a rule on every single thing, right down to which way to hold a fork, is legalism.

i would like to comment on this too :) i hope that most dont really say that for things like tatoos and headcoverings one is gonna go to hell :eek there is a differnce between something being a sin- and one going to hell for that one sin. i dont think we should ever be wishy washy about what sin is. i agree it is not ever about ( or shouldnt be) about everyone having to do what a certain person does, we should i beleive though draw a line between doing what another says we must- and doing what the Lord by the Word says we must. to judge a sin as a sin isnt at all wrong, to correct a brother or sister who is in sin isnt wrong- and in sad sad cases where a brother or sister is in a sin and refuses to stop, cutting them off isnt wrong either ( i bring these up because many call this judgeing and say we shouldnt do it.) and I agree if someone tells u how to hold your fork OH BOY! i know there aint no laws about that LOL

i think the reason why some things cause so much trouble between brethern is alot what was said above about the way alot of gentils look at the law and " legalism"a large number of brethern ( gentiles) believe suggesting any form of obedience to the word is " bad bad legalism" many others use that word whenever they dont want to accept what the word says, they pick and choose commadments they are willing to keep and if one dares give then a scripture they dont wanna obey they are then accused of " legalism" { many times but not all this is where grey areas come in for people, many grey areas are only grey to the person because they will not accept it as black or white ( this is often caused from being lukewarm- grey, not hot white of cold black) dont get me wrong i am not saying this is always the case but i have found it often is ( many times tatoos are one of these that there is scripture for but most dont want.)

but in the end with all commadments with all things, we are to love the Lords ways, if a person is grieved and hates the word or certian commadments it isnt gonna do them any good to obey it anyways . the reason being is the Spirit of the Lord loves the Lords commands, when we find ourselves wanting to ignore what the word says that is our flesh and flesh cannot obey anyways.

glorymj

August 8th, 2003, 07:55 AM

:tape

Vickimac

August 8th, 2003, 09:25 AM

Obedience is not legalism. Obedience is LOVE returned.

Legalism is the mindset that DOING will get you to heaven or not doing will send you to hell. (IMO). And it's wrong, it insults the work on the cross.

The truth is Jesus did all the "work" for salvation. He already paid the price for sin. Our obedience is the way we show him we love him. Without obedience, how can we "claim" to love him when he suffered so much and so deeply because of our sin? To know him IS to love him, to love him is to do as he would want us to do, period.

We're going to meet him face to face. I'm not going to stand there with a list of all the laws I followed, like I DESERVE heaven or something. How arrogant is that? I want to stand there with him knowing how much I deeply love him and tried to live it and show it.

We are saved by the grace of Jesus, not by the law. And to him alone is all the glory!

:):

Wileyzmuse

August 8th, 2003, 10:13 AM

I agree Vickimac.

Legalism represents control, or the illusion of control, by following rules that we can see and hear. It appeals to that place in us that needs certainty and not faith. Faith believes what it cannot see, and trusts that God will do what He has promised.

If you think of how Jesus lavished his love upon the people he met, that is how we are to live also. He lavished forgiveness on the adulteress woman. He forgave her first, and then told her to go and sin no more. He didn't ask her to be sinless first. Grace is the single most powerful 'event' in the Bible. When we start to step outside of grace, we start trying in our own power to be righteous, and that is where legalism is, imo.

Legalism says "you'd better do this, or else..." whereas grace says "My grace is sufficient for you, now go and sin no more..."

YSIC,
Patricia

Hyssop

August 8th, 2003, 10:27 AM

This won't make me popular, but, I would say that for those strong enough in Christ to stay, let them stay.

These verses come to mind: Anyone who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me.
Whoever finds his life will lose it and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
To live is Christ, and to die is gain.
Do not be afraid of those that kill the body but cannot kill the soul...

1Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19: For it is commendable if one bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is concious of God. 20: But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong to endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21: To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His steps.
23: When they hurled insults at Him, He did not retailiate; when He suffered, He made no threats...

Matthew 20:25-28whoever wishes to become great among you will be your servant and whoever wishes to be the first among you will be your slave, just as the Son Of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many...

I'll close with:

Sarah called Abraham master. From what I've gathered, we are supposed to submit to authority, no matter how cruel- as to be a living example of Christ, even to death.

Legalism??? Maybe we live on a watered down Gospel nowadays, the Truth is hard sometimes... It seems so very sad, yet this is scriptural

:cry

antsinmypants

August 8th, 2003, 10:33 AM

VickiMac and Hyssop put it very well :thumb :D:

dusty

August 8th, 2003, 10:41 AM

~dusty- i have to say i absolutly disagree with most of what you said,first i would like to say, i am not giving " my discion or way" in this what so ever, i have stuck to exactly what the word says and since the Word is alive and died for us, walked in Spirit and truth and taught up by His Spirit i believe as the word says that HIS ways are that of Love. therefore i stand with the word in this no matter how I could justify it in my mind to be differnt. His ways are not our ways and often what is the truly loving thing, is exactly the oppostie of what we would do on our own. I have put no one down here but stated and stood on the word without compromise. I truly pray that none of us ever have to be in a situation of spousal abuse ever again, but it does happen, and i find sin to be worse then physical death. As far as ones own walk, i agree we all must answer to our Master for what we do and before His throne i dont be there to defend you nor you me- we are on our own with the Lord. However i find it completely unscriptural to suggest that the Lords goes against His word and tells His kids to break His word, depending on ones individual walk. Some people beleive in ' grey areas" of scripture - if we are going to say there are grey areas, then surely those areas are where there is no direct commad given for or against.- but in the word there are also numerous things that are not at all grey according to the Lord. Things that are absolutly layed out and this is one of those areas. grey areas only come in to things like this when one doesn t want to accept the word as written in love, for whatever reason.~ If in our walks we never feel the Lord is telling us to disobey His own word we best stop fast, call our flesh and fears in check, bind the enemy and know the Lord doesnt change and go agasint what He had written in His word.~

I guess to me legalism is when one person is basically saying "this is what the Bible says, if you dont do this, or you do this wrong, you are going to hell" when it comes to things like head coverings and tatoos, or anything else controversial. Legalism is saying that everyone must do exactly what they do or they are wrong. Which, you know in a way is correct, become saved or go to hell, but since becoming saved is the ONLY thing that determines your salvation, to put other things like having a beer now and then up there with that is a sin. I think it is wonderful that some follow and obey the laws of the Torah, but to treat others as though they are horrible sinners if they dont is wrong, it is judging and the Bible says not to do that. There are things that are blatent sins, like the obvious homosexuality and witchcraft, which we can all agree are sins, but we have to trust that the Holy Spirit will guide us in the other areas, and in doing what we truely believe is right, we should get no condemnation from others. To put a rule on every single thing, right down to which way to hold a fork, is legalism.

i would like to comment on this too :) i hope that most dont really say that for things like tatoos and headcoverings one is gonna go to hell there is a differnce between something being a sin- and one going to hell for that one sin. i dont think we should ever be wishy washy about what sin is. i agree it is not ever about ( or shouldnt be) about everyone having to do what a certain person does, we should i beleive though draw a line between doing what another says we must- and doing what the Lord by the Word says we must. to judge a sin as a sin isnt at all wrong, to correct a brother or sister who is in sin isnt wrong- and in sad sad cases where a brother or sister is in a sin and refuses to stop, cutting them off isnt wrong either ( i bring these up because many call this judgeing and say we shouldnt do it.) and I agree if someone tells u how to hold your fork OH BOY! i know there aint no laws about that LOL

i think the reason why some things cause so much trouble between brethern is alot what was said above about the way alot of gentils look at the law and " legalism"a large number of brethern ( gentiles) believe suggesting any form of obedience to the word is " bad bad legalism" many others use that word whenever they dont want to accept what the word says, they pick and choose commadments they are willing to keep and if one dares give then a scripture they dont wanna obey they are then accused of " legalism" { many times but not all this is where grey areas come in for people, many grey areas are only grey to the person because they will not accept it as black or white ( this is often caused from being lukewarm- grey, not hot white of cold black) dont get me wrong i am not saying this is always the case but i have found it often is ( many times tatoos are one of these that there is scripture for but most dont want.)

but in the end with all commadments with all things, we are to love the Lords ways, if a person is grieved and hates the word or certian commadments it isnt gonna do them any good to obey it anyways . the reason being is the Spirit of the Lord loves the Lords commands, when we find ourselves wanting to ignore what the word says that is our flesh and flesh cannot obey anyways.
jenniofYahushua,

My previous post was addressing the issues of if another disagrees with an opinion they are: not as faithful, being disobedient, more sinful, not loving their spouse as much, not loving the Lord as much. If another interprets differently what the word says, they are not accepting God's word.

It's OK to disagree with other's views :):. There are many diverse views and opinions here -- it makes for lively conversation. Where the line is drawn is at better-Christian-than-you implications when others may have an opinion that differs with our opinion.

You are presenting your opinion of how what the word says is to be interpreted. We all are encouraged to do this in using scriptures in our discussions with each other -- what is discouraged are implications that others are not obeying truth when our opinion is disagreed with.

These things are further defined in the board rules found here: http://www.rr-bb.com/rules.php?s=

Legalism is saying that everyone must do exactly what they do or they are wrong.........we have to trust that the Holy Spirit will guide us in the other areas, and in doing what we truely believe is right, we should get no condemnation from others.
Well spoken.

I would add that I believe legalism could be loosely defined as attempting to gain acceptance before God by any other means than Christ's own righteousness, which alone is accepted by God and which is imparted to the saint as a gift making us accepted before God in the Beloved.

:):

antsinmypants

October 5th, 2003, 03:37 AM

:bump

Elizabeth_S

October 5th, 2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Sojourner
Matthew 11:29-30
Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

Legalism is when we load another believer's yoke down with burden. Those burdens come in the form of our own personal convictions. God works with each believer individually, it is not our job to add to the burden of one another.

I can agree with this this as a valid definition.

My church I attend says that many do this. Telling people how to dress or act or think or feel. When these people should leave ,especially the new beleiver alone.

God will deal with these things that are not salvation issues.

A good example:

there was a young girl in the church that was newly saved. She dressed very provocatively.

Now the self appointed "better christians than you are" wanted to make this girl dress a certain way, and basically tell her she was a poor example of a christian because of her dress.

HOwever, the Pastor adressed these women who had appointed themselves as the keeper of rules, and told them to leave the young girl alone, just help her learn and grow in the Lord.

It wasn't long (just a few weeks) that the girl deceided to change her mode of dress and she approached another woman(not part of the rule keeprs team)and said she felt the Lord did not want her dressing in such a way anymore.

That is what legalists are to me. Putting their perceptions on others and appearing to make it a salvation issue or how to act as a christian rules not found anywhere but in their minds, when God is quite capable of dealing with non issues.

Vickimac
[quote]Legalism is the mindset that DOING will get you to heaven or not doing will send you to hell. (IMO). And it's wrong, it insults the work on the cross.

The truth is Jesus did all the "work" for salvation. He already paid the price for sin. Our obedience is the way we show him we love him. Without obedience, how can we "claim" to love him when he suffered so much and so deeply because of our sin? To know him IS to love him, to love him is to do as he would want us to do, period.[/i]

Yes he did Vicki, you hit the nail right on the head!!!

And obedience is so much of our walk in Christ. But what one person Christ has called to do (not talking about direct disobedience) is different than anothers.

For example: You may have a friend who is a recovering alcoholic, and you feel that you personally should not drink, even when not around this friend.

But it would be wrong to start applying this edict to every other christian, as there is no directive or is this addressed as a sin (as I have seen a few push onto others) or wrong in the bible.

Moderation in all things. But there are some who want to put unbiblical burdens on others to satisfy their need to control others.

tractsforchrist

October 5th, 2003, 10:36 PM

I have another story to tell people.....

There was a girl who became a new christian in this church (by the way this is NOT me, not one of those third-person things:wacko ) and all the ladies in the church accepted her. They found out that she was living with her boyfriend. Everybody was so shocked that no one told her that it was wrong. A couple of weeks later the girl announced to the church that she had left her boyfriend because she figured out that it was wrong. Now I am not saying, we should be not telling people that having unmarried sex is not a ok, but this is an example of where people know what is wrong. Again, we should be telling people that having sex is wrong unmarried, but for the sake of the story.

I also stuggle with legalism. After being involved in the occult, I was shocked to learn that one of my pastors was made a quick 30 second reference to the Lord of the Rings in her sermon today. The reference was justified, but I was shocked that she had watched it the day of yesterday. I should chastise myself. The reference was pure [she was saying how the everyone was after the precious, enough to give up their lives, and we should think that Jesus thinks we are that precious to give up our lives] Do I think it should of been used in the sermon. No. Should I judge it of her to watch it? No. I know I can't watch it because it could lead me down the path of the occult. Should she have watched? I don't know. I would like to think that she recognized that it was just a story and was thinking of Jesus when she was looking at it by her reference that she kept on thinking that the ring was us as being precious.

I don't know about you, but I have bad feelings of messing up obedience and legalism. If we break one law, we are guilty of it all, but we are saved by grace. Now we are saved, but I have a probem with adhering to the torah out of love for Jesus of obedience. If we love Jesus, you say that we will want to be obedient. Do we pick and choose which laws to be obedient of? I am not trying to be funny, but if Jesus was not putting down the law, but profilling it, should I stone my neighbor who does work on Sunday, even though he is a believer?

Should I not eat pork? God told Peter to kill and eat that struck down that law.

Should I not be in contact of a man if I am on my period?

Again, I am not being a troll, but I don't understand this.........

Should I eat lamb every passover?