Legalism vs. Liberalism.......................Reject both!

[Escapee]

"Legalism and liberalism are the same cancer - they are both a denial of the sufficiency of scripture. Liberalism masquerades as love and claims that scripture goes too far. Legalism masquerades as holiness and claims that scripture doesn't go far enough. Reject both." Micah Fries

Many who call those who reject legalism liberal, dont understand that many actually are rejecting both! Amen!!!!

 

[FSSL]

Well said!

 

[cpizzle]

Liberty - The Straight and Narrow Path Between Liberalism and Legalism

I tell my church we oppose Liberalism, Legalism, and Formalism.

I am too conservative for the new IFB's and the SBC but I am too Liberal for the Old Paths and Bob Gray crowd.  I don't have many folks to fellowship with...but I believe I might just be in the right place.  "Few there be that find it."

 

[Escapee]

Liberty - The Straight and Narrow Path Between Liberalism and Legalism

I tell my church we oppose Liberalism, Legalism, and Formalism.

I am too conservative for the new IFB's and the SBC but I am too Liberal for the Old Paths and Bob Gray crowd.  I don't have many folks to fellowship with...but I believe I might just be in the right place.  "Few there be that find it."

If you are too conservative for the New IFBers and the SBC then you still have a ways to go in your liberty! Just being honest! 

 

[Saved by Grace]

There is nothing wrong with holiness as long as it's rooted in Scripture

Holiness rooted in Scripture is obedience.

Legalism attaches works to salvation. Liberalism attaches nothing to salvation .

 

[cpizzle]

Liberty - The Straight and Narrow Path Between Liberalism and Legalism

I tell my church we oppose Liberalism, Legalism, and Formalism.

I am too conservative for the new IFB's and the SBC but I am too Liberal for the Old Paths and Bob Gray crowd.  I don't have many folks to fellowship with...but I believe I might just be in the right place.  "Few there be that find it."

If you are too conservative for the New IFBers and the SBC then you still have a ways to go in your liberty! Just being honest! 

I choose not to use "Liberty as occasion for the Flesh" (Gal 5:13) or as a "Cloak of Maliciousness"  (1 Peter 2:16).

Just being honest! 

 

[Escapee]

There is nothing wrong with holiness as long as it's rooted in Scripture

Holiness rooted in Scripture is obedience.

Legalism attaches works to salvation. Liberalism attaches nothing to salvation .

And therin lies some of the problem. Who put you in charge of defining what legalism is? Not even a Bible word. It is clearly also anything added to the Bible as measures of spirituality! Great quote by Micah Fries and so true. Liberalism and Legalism are first cousins!

 

[cpizzle]

My definition of Legalism is multi faceted.
1. Adding works to Salvation (the only definition according to many IFB preachers)
2. Enforcing extra-Biblical or Old Testment standards and practices to achieve full fellowship and participation in the Church. (Exposed in the Book of Galatians)
3. Focusing on the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law. (Pharisees, Healing on the Sabbath)
4. Requiring conformity in all matters of faith and practice, even to the smallest detail. (Read Romans 14)

The disagreement we are having is not about Legalism and Liberalsim, we are arguing over standards of Holiness.  Someone can have higher standards than me and not be a Legalist.  Someone can have lower standards than me and not be a Liberal.  My standards are higher than the New IFB's and the SBC out of personal conviction and the leading of the Holy Spirit.  I base them on my understanding of scripture and the applications I make to today's world.  I only become a Legalist when I require others to adopt my convictions that go beyond inspired scripture.  I may encourage my congregation to adopt high standards of personal Holliness, but I can't enforce them.

Here is an example.  I am King James only and I let my people know that I am.  I tell them why I believe what I believe and hope to persuade them to use the KJB as well.  I require all Sunday School Teachers and special speakers to use the KJB.  However, I still let people who carry an NIV sing in the choir, serve as ushers, lead in prayer, work in the nursery, ect....  I may call out their "Bible", but I never preach against them.

 

[Escapee]

My definition of Legalism is multi faceted.
1. Adding works to Salvation (the only definition according to many IFB preachers)
2. Enforcing extra-Biblical or Old Testment standards and practices to achieve full fellowship and participation in the Church. (Exposed in the Book of Galatians)
3. Focusing on the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law. (Pharisees, Healing on the Sabbath)
4. Requiring conformity in all matters of faith and practice, even to the smallest detail. (Read Romans 14)

The disagreement we are having is not about Legalism and Liberalsim, we are arguing over standards of Holiness.  Someone can have higher standards than me and not be a Legalist.  Someone can have lower standards than me and not be a Liberal.  My standards are higher than the New IFB's and the SBC out of personal conviction and the leading of the Holy Spirit.  I base them on my understanding of scripture and the applications I make to today's world.  I only become a Legalist when I require others to adopt my convictions that go beyond inspired scripture.  I may encourage my congregation to adopt high standards of personal Holliness, but I can't enforce them.

Here is an example.  I am King James only and I let my people know that I am.  I tell them why I believe what I believe and hope to persuade them to use the KJB as well.  I require all Sunday School Teachers and special speakers to use the KJB.  However, I still let people who carry an NIV sing in the choir, serve as ushers, lead in prayer, work in the nursery, ect....  I may call out their "Bible", but I never preach against them.

While I certainly respect your freedom in Christ, I personally cannot see any other position than theological suicide to hold any form of a "King James Only" position. King James preferred....no problem. King James Only.........is a flawed and arrogant position to take when you hold it up against history and the world! JMO

 

[T-Bone]

My definition of Legalism is multi faceted.
1. Adding works to Salvation (the only definition according to many IFB preachers)
2. Enforcing extra-Biblical or Old Testment standards and practices to achieve full fellowship and participation in the Church. (Exposed in the Book of Galatians)
3. Focusing on the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law. (Pharisees, Healing on the Sabbath)
4. Requiring conformity in all matters of faith and practice, even to the smallest detail. (Read Romans 14)

The disagreement we are having is not about Legalism and Liberalsim, we are arguing over standards of Holiness.  Someone can have higher standards than me and not be a Legalist.  Someone can have lower standards than me and not be a Liberal.  My standards are higher than the New IFB's and the SBC out of personal conviction and the leading of the Holy Spirit.  I base them on my understanding of scripture and the applications I make to today's world.  I only become a Legalist when I require others to adopt my convictions that go beyond inspired scripture.  I may encourage my congregation to adopt high standards of personal Holliness, but I can't enforce them.

Here is an example.  I am King James only and I let my people know that I am.  I tell them why I believe what I believe and hope to persuade them to use the KJB as well.  I require all Sunday School Teachers and special speakers to use the KJB.  However, I still let people who carry an NIV sing in the choir, serve as ushers, lead in prayer, work in the nursery, ect....  I may call out their "Bible", but I never preach against them.

Well you might not see yourself as a legalist...but I hope you can see your spiritual arrogance that permeates your post. Your post sounds a lot like..."Lord, thank you that I am not like..."

 

[cpizzle]

Not to get off topic, but here is my current on the KJB (subject to change ).

In my opinion, there are 2 kinds of Bible believers:

1. Those who believe God must have given us a perfect (define how you please) Bible that is still available to us today in a final, understandable form.  Hence, the KJB.

2. Those who believe God inspired the original writers and that a perfect Bible still exists in the multitude of preserved manuscripts.  Through diligent study we can determine what the original writers transcribed by comparing, contrasting, accepting, and eliminating various differences.

Although I hold to the first option by faith, logic, and study, I still consider those of the 2nd opinion true Bible Believers and in no way inferior to myself

 

[cpizzle]

My definition of Legalism is multi faceted.
1. Adding works to Salvation (the only definition according to many IFB preachers)
2. Enforcing extra-Biblical or Old Testment standards and practices to achieve full fellowship and participation in the Church. (Exposed in the Book of Galatians)
3. Focusing on the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law. (Pharisees, Healing on the Sabbath)
4. Requiring conformity in all matters of faith and practice, even to the smallest detail. (Read Romans 14)

The disagreement we are having is not about Legalism and Liberalsim, we are arguing over standards of Holiness.  Someone can have higher standards than me and not be a Legalist.  Someone can have lower standards than me and not be a Liberal.  My standards are higher than the New IFB's and the SBC out of personal conviction and the leading of the Holy Spirit.  I base them on my understanding of scripture and the applications I make to today's world.  I only become a Legalist when I require others to adopt my convictions that go beyond inspired scripture.  I may encourage my congregation to adopt high standards of personal Holliness, but I can't enforce them.

Here is an example.  I am King James only and I let my people know that I am.  I tell them why I believe what I believe and hope to persuade them to use the KJB as well.  I require all Sunday School Teachers and special speakers to use the KJB.  However, I still let people who carry an NIV sing in the choir, serve as ushers, lead in prayer, work in the nursery, ect....  I may call out their "Bible", but I never preach against them.

Well you might not see yourself as a legalist...but I hope you can see your spiritual arrogance that permeates your post. Your post sounds a lot like..."Lord, thank you that I am not like..."

Forgive me, but I don't fully understand your criticism (I know it is not personal btw.)  I belive my position shows grace, longsuffering, and mercy.  I think I am right in my convictions, and I preach them as I feel led by the Holy Ghost.  However, since I know that I am subject to mistakes and incorrect thinking, I give everyone great leeway in their own beliefs.  Hence....Liberty.

 

[Bob H]

My definition of Legalism is multi faceted.
1. Adding works to Salvation (the only definition according to many IFB preachers)
2. Enforcing extra-Biblical or Old Testment standards and practices to achieve full fellowship and participation in the Church. (Exposed in the Book of Galatians)
3. Focusing on the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law. (Pharisees, Healing on the Sabbath)
4. Requiring conformity in all matters of faith and practice, even to the smallest detail. (Read Romans 14)

The disagreement we are having is not about Legalism and Liberalsim, we are arguing over standards of Holiness.  Someone can have higher standards than me and not be a Legalist.  Someone can have lower standards than me and not be a Liberal.  My standards are higher than the New IFB's and the SBC out of personal conviction and the leading of the Holy Spirit.  I base them on my understanding of scripture and the applications I make to today's world.  I only become a Legalist when I require others to adopt my convictions that go beyond inspired scripture.  I may encourage my congregation to adopt high standards of personal Holliness, but I can't enforce them.

Here is an example.  I am King James only and I let my people know that I am.  I tell them why I believe what I believe and hope to persuade them to use the KJB as well.  I require all Sunday School Teachers and special speakers to use the KJB.  However, I still let people who carry an NIV sing in the choir, serve as ushers, lead in prayer, work in the nursery, ect....  I may call out their "Bible", but I never preach against them.

Well you might not see yourself as a legalist...but I hope you can see your spiritual arrogance that permeates your post. Your post sounds a lot like..."Lord, thank you that I am not like..."

I'm not a KJVO but with that said I don't think he's the one who needs the glasses. He was no more arrogant than those who responded to him with their opinion. But that's just me.

 

[T-Bone]

My definition of Legalism is multi faceted.
1. Adding works to Salvation (the only definition according to many IFB preachers)
2. Enforcing extra-Biblical or Old Testment standards and practices to achieve full fellowship and participation in the Church. (Exposed in the Book of Galatians)
3. Focusing on the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law. (Pharisees, Healing on the Sabbath)
4. Requiring conformity in all matters of faith and practice, even to the smallest detail. (Read Romans 14)

The disagreement we are having is not about Legalism and Liberalsim, we are arguing over standards of Holiness.  Someone can have higher standards than me and not be a Legalist.  Someone can have lower standards than me and not be a Liberal.  My standards are higher than the New IFB's and the SBC out of personal conviction and the leading of the Holy Spirit.  I base them on my understanding of scripture and the applications I make to today's world.  I only become a Legalist when I require others to adopt my convictions that go beyond inspired scripture.  I may encourage my congregation to adopt high standards of personal Holliness, but I can't enforce them.

Here is an example.  I am King James only and I let my people know that I am.  I tell them why I believe what I believe and hope to persuade them to use the KJB as well.  I require all Sunday School Teachers and special speakers to use the KJB.  However, I still let people who carry an NIV sing in the choir, serve as ushers, lead in prayer, work in the nursery, ect....  I may call out their "Bible", but I never preach against them.

Well you might not see yourself as a legalist...but I hope you can see your spiritual arrogance that permeates your post. Your post sounds a lot like..."Lord, thank you that I am not like..."

Forgive me, but I don't fully understand your criticism (I know it is not personal btw.)  I belive my position shows grace, longsuffering, and mercy.  I think I am right in my convictions, and I preach them as I feel led by the Holy Ghost.  However, since I know that I am subject to mistakes and incorrect thinking, I give everyone great leeway in their own beliefs.  Hence....Liberty.

And I hope you will forgive me if I misread your statement concerning  your standards being higher than SBC, not sure how you know that or if you know that we SBC pastors are not monolithic.

 

[cpizzle]

My definition of Legalism is multi faceted.
1. Adding works to Salvation (the only definition according to many IFB preachers)
2. Enforcing extra-Biblical or Old Testment standards and practices to achieve full fellowship and participation in the Church. (Exposed in the Book of Galatians)
3. Focusing on the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law. (Pharisees, Healing on the Sabbath)
4. Requiring conformity in all matters of faith and practice, even to the smallest detail. (Read Romans 14)

The disagreement we are having is not about Legalism and Liberalsim, we are arguing over standards of Holiness.  Someone can have higher standards than me and not be a Legalist.  Someone can have lower standards than me and not be a Liberal.  My standards are higher than the New IFB's and the SBC out of personal conviction and the leading of the Holy Spirit.  I base them on my understanding of scripture and the applications I make to today's world.  I only become a Legalist when I require others to adopt my convictions that go beyond inspired scripture.  I may encourage my congregation to adopt high standards of personal Holliness, but I can't enforce them.

Here is an example.  I am King James only and I let my people know that I am.  I tell them why I believe what I believe and hope to persuade them to use the KJB as well.  I require all Sunday School Teachers and special speakers to use the KJB.  However, I still let people who carry an NIV sing in the choir, serve as ushers, lead in prayer, work in the nursery, ect....  I may call out their "Bible", but I never preach against them.

Well you might not see yourself as a legalist...but I hope you can see your spiritual arrogance that permeates your post. Your post sounds a lot like..."Lord, thank you that I am not like..."

Forgive me, but I don't fully understand your criticism (I know it is not personal btw.)  I belive my position shows grace, longsuffering, and mercy.  I think I am right in my convictions, and I preach them as I feel led by the Holy Ghost.  However, since I know that I am subject to mistakes and incorrect thinking, I give everyone great leeway in their own beliefs.  Hence....Liberty.

And I hope you will forgive me if I misread your statement concerning  your standards being higher than SBC, not sure how you know that or if you know that we SBC pastors are not monolithic.

Let me rephrase myself.

I am not too good or too holy for the SBC.  I was preaching at a Cumberland Presbyterian church just a few years ago.  I'll preach anywhere that gives me Liberty to speak.

What I meant to say is that many New IFB's and Southern Baptists would call me a legalist because I have not completely abandoned all the standards of "fundamentalism."  On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the modern mega church and 10 being Bob Gray, I would say I am a 5.  This leaves me without many places to fellowship.

I know that SBC churches come in many stripes.  I would probably attend a conservative SBC church if I still lived back home in West Tennessee.  They are not my enemy by any means, but Southern Baptist and Independent Baptists as a whole are still somewhat distinctive from one another.

True story - I once went to our local SBC office and offered my services to fill their pulpits if their were any temporary vacancies.  I was told that they won't use Independent  preachers because they thought I would try to pull their churches away from the convention.

Again, I am a friend to IFB's, New IFB's, and SBC's.  However, I find that they want me to change to meet their expectations...and that I am not willing to do.

God Bless!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

My definition of Legalism is multi faceted.
1. Adding works to Salvation (the only definition according to many IFB preachers)
2. Enforcing extra-Biblical or Old Testment standards and practices to achieve full fellowship and participation in the Church. (Exposed in the Book of Galatians)
3. Focusing on the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law. (Pharisees, Healing on the Sabbath)
4. Requiring conformity in all matters of faith and practice, even to the smallest detail. (Read Romans 14)

The disagreement we are having is not about Legalism and Liberalsim, we are arguing over standards of Holiness.  Someone can have higher standards than me and not be a Legalist.  Someone can have lower standards than me and not be a Liberal.  My standards are higher than the New IFB's and the SBC out of personal conviction and the leading of the Holy Spirit.  I base them on my understanding of scripture and the applications I make to today's world.  I only become a Legalist when I require others to adopt my convictions that go beyond inspired scripture.  I may encourage my congregation to adopt high standards of personal Holliness, but I can't enforce them.

Here is an example.  I am King James only and I let my people know that I am.  I tell them why I believe what I believe and hope to persuade them to use the KJB as well.  I require all Sunday School Teachers and special speakers to use the KJB.  However, I still let people who carry an NIV sing in the choir, serve as ushers, lead in prayer, work in the nursery, ect....  I may call out their "Bible", but I never preach against them.

Well you might not see yourself as a legalist...but I hope you can see your spiritual arrogance that permeates your post. Your post sounds a lot like..."Lord, thank you that I am not like..."

Forgive me, but I don't fully understand your criticism (I know it is not personal btw.)  I belive my position shows grace, longsuffering, and mercy.  I think I am right in my convictions, and I preach them as I feel led by the Holy Ghost.  However, since I know that I am subject to mistakes and incorrect thinking, I give everyone great leeway in their own beliefs.  Hence....Liberty.

Do you consider your KJV standard to be a ?standard of holiness??
Would pants on ladies be a ?standard of holiness??

I assume we all base our standards on our understanding of Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit. And yet, we?re so different...

 

[cpizzle]

"Do you consider your KJV standard to be a ?standard of holiness??
Would pants on ladies be a ?standard of holiness??

I assume we all base our standards on our understanding of Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit. And yet, we?re so different... "

My KJB position is a belief of mine, but since it is an "extra-Biblical" concept, I wouldn't call it a conviction or a "standard of holiness."  I don't know if my position pleases God, but I do believe he appreciates my sincerity and my desire to "protect" his word.  I accept it on faith that God's word is preserved.  Since "things that are different are not the same", I am faced with two choices:  We either have one translation or no translation.  (see my above post on 2 types of Bible Believers.)

"Pants on Women" is certainly a standard of Holiness, but it is not one that I hold.  I will admit that I clung to it far longer than I should.  I knew it was a bogus standard for years before I was brave enough to admit my error.  To those that do believe it, it is a conviction.  The difference between a conviction and a preference has to do with whose "will" is being enforced.  If it is God's will then it is a conviction.  If it is my will, then it is a preference.  People with higher convictions are not necessarily legalists.  They truly believe they are preaching God's standards of obedience.  They become legalists when they start demanding that their interpretation of "modesty", "short hair," "songs, hymns, and spiritual songs," and the all encompassing "appearance of evil" standards must be followed to the letter.  They become legalists when they care more about strict adherence to an obscure OT reference over easily understood NT themes such as love, mercy, peace, gentleness, kindness, and goodness. 

Hope this helps.

 

[Bob H]

....What I meant to say is that many New IFB's and Southern Baptists would call me a legalist because I have not completely abandoned all the standards of "fundamentalism." ....

In 1948 when Ockenga coined the name/term new-evangelical and the fudamentalist/neo lines were then drawn, and since the KJVO debate didn't exist then and rock music wasn't invented yet and everyone dressed up for church, what are/were the "standards of fundamentalism?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

"Do you consider your KJV standard to be a ?standard of holiness??
Would pants on ladies be a ?standard of holiness??

I assume we all base our standards on our understanding of Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit. And yet, we?re so different... "

My KJB position is a belief of mine, but since it is an "extra-Biblical" concept, I wouldn't call it a conviction or a "standard of holiness."  I don't know if my position pleases God, but I do believe he appreciates my sincerity and my desire to "protect" his word.  I accept it on faith that God's word is preserved.  Since "things that are different are not the same", I am faced with two choices:  We either have one translation or no translation.  (see my above post on 2 types of Bible Believers.)

"Pants on Women" is certainly a standard of Holiness, but it is not one that I hold.  I will admit that I clung to it far longer than I should.  I knew it was a bogus standard for years before I was brave enough to admit my error.  To those that do believe it, it is a conviction.  The difference between a conviction and a preference has to do with whose "will" is being enforced.  If it is God's will then it is a conviction.  If it is my will, then it is a preference.  People with higher convictions are not necessarily legalists.  They truly believe they are preaching God's standards of obedience.  They become legalists when they start demanding that their interpretation of "modesty", "short hair," "songs, hymns, and spiritual songs," and the all encompassing "appearance of evil" standards must be followed to the letter.  They become legalists when they care more about strict adherence to an obscure OT reference over easily understood NT themes such as love, mercy, peace, gentleness, kindness, and goodness. 

Hope this helps.

It does indeed help.
Thank you for your clarification.

 

[T-Bone]

My definition of Legalism is multi faceted.
1. Adding works to Salvation (the only definition according to many IFB preachers)
2. Enforcing extra-Biblical or Old Testment standards and practices to achieve full fellowship and participation in the Church. (Exposed in the Book of Galatians)
3. Focusing on the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law. (Pharisees, Healing on the Sabbath)
4. Requiring conformity in all matters of faith and practice, even to the smallest detail. (Read Romans 14)

The disagreement we are having is not about Legalism and Liberalsim, we are arguing over standards of Holiness.  Someone can have higher standards than me and not be a Legalist.  Someone can have lower standards than me and not be a Liberal.  My standards are higher than the New IFB's and the SBC out of personal conviction and the leading of the Holy Spirit.  I base them on my understanding of scripture and the applications I make to today's world.  I only become a Legalist when I require others to adopt my convictions that go beyond inspired scripture.  I may encourage my congregation to adopt high standards of personal Holliness, but I can't enforce them.

Here is an example.  I am King James only and I let my people know that I am.  I tell them why I believe what I believe and hope to persuade them to use the KJB as well.  I require all Sunday School Teachers and special speakers to use the KJB.  However, I still let people who carry an NIV sing in the choir, serve as ushers, lead in prayer, work in the nursery, ect....  I may call out their "Bible", but I never preach against them.

Well you might not see yourself as a legalist...but I hope you can see your spiritual arrogance that permeates your post. Your post sounds a lot like..."Lord, thank you that I am not like..."

Forgive me, but I don't fully understand your criticism (I know it is not personal btw.)  I belive my position shows grace, longsuffering, and mercy.  I think I am right in my convictions, and I preach them as I feel led by the Holy Ghost.  However, since I know that I am subject to mistakes and incorrect thinking, I give everyone great leeway in their own beliefs.  Hence....Liberty.

And I hope you will forgive me if I misread your statement concerning  your standards being higher than SBC, not sure how you know that or if you know that we SBC pastors are not monolithic.

Let me rephrase myself.

I am not too good or too holy for the SBC.  I was preaching at a Cumberland Presbyterian church just a few years ago.  I'll preach anywhere that gives me Liberty to speak.

What I meant to say is that many New IFB's and Southern Baptists would call me a legalist because I have not completely abandoned all the standards of "fundamentalism."  On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the modern mega church and 10 being Bob Gray, I would say I am a 5.  This leaves me without many places to fellowship.

I know that SBC churches come in many stripes.  I would probably attend a conservative SBC church if I still lived back home in West Tennessee.  They are not my enemy by any means, but Southern Baptist and Independent Baptists as a whole are still somewhat distinctive from one another.

True story - I once went to our local SBC office and offered my services to fill their pulpits if their were any temporary vacancies.  I was told that they won't use Independent  preachers because they thought I would try to pull their churches away from the convention.

Again, I am a friend to IFB's, New IFB's, and SBC's.  However, I find that they want me to change to meet their expectations...and that I am not willing to do.

God Bless!

Thank you for sharing and clarifying...again forgive me as clearly I misread your intent.  Bless you!