Who I am...

[UsingMyBrain]

My name is Tad Mills, I'm currently pastor of a church in Springport Indiana. (Trying to move to Florida)
Ok, my IFB credentials... I was raised in an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, Victory Baptist Church in Anderson Indiana. Some of you might know my sister Jo Anne and her husband Rick Sparks. Rick is on staff at FBC Hammond and taught for many years at Hyles Anderson College.
My parents live with my sister and attend Southpoint Baptist in Crown Point where John Crusso is pastor.
Although still hold tightly to the doctrinal position of my IFB upbringing, I don't hold to the legalism.

 

[Walt]

My name is Tad Mills, I'm currently pastor of a church in Springport Indiana. (Trying to move to Florida)
Ok, my IFB credentials... I was raised in an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, Victory Baptist Church in Anderson Indiana. Some of you might know my sister Jo Anne and her husband Rick Sparks. Rick is on staff at FBC Hammond and taught for many years at Hyles Anderson College.
My parents live with my sister and attend Southpoint Baptist in Crown Point where John Crusso is pastor.
Although still hold tightly to the doctrinal position of my IFB upbringing, I don't hold to the legalism.

Welcome! Can you defined what you mean by "the legalism"?

 

[UsingMyBrain]

Welcome! Can you defined what you mean by "the legalism"?

Sure, there were rules within my upbringing that went beyond what the scripture taught to personal preference. I know you are going to ask for examples but, in the interest of not offending the weaker Brothers and Sisters I'll leave it there.

 

[Walt]

Sure, there were rules within my upbringing that went beyond what the scripture taught to personal preference. I know you are going to ask for examples but, in the interest of not offending the weaker Brothers and Sisters I'll leave it there.

I respect your decision, but it is unclear -- there are three types of things that people call "legalism"
First, there is what I'll call "true legalism" - they truly preach personal preferences: preaching against men wearing whites shoes. Similar to this, but treated as a joke are comments about brands of soda, car brands, sports teams, coffee etc. I think such joking comments are very unwise, but I wouldn't call them legalism.
Second, there is what I call "false legalism" - this kind (and the next one) are what I most often hear complaints about. This is usually invoked about people who have different standards (usually higher standards) than our own. When we disagree with another about hair length, Bible versions, dress standards, music, drinking, etc, it is not appropriate to label it "legalism". We ought to say that we don't agree with their standards, or their interpretation of Biblical principles, but they are not legalists.
The third kind of what I'll call "practical legalism" - this is the case when a church obsesses about the standards that they hold: there seems to be a constant preaching about their standards; at least every month, they will mention hair standards, or dress standards, etc. They have lost sight of exalting God and are all about their rules. I also find this to be pretty common. Churches like this tend to "blackball" people that aren't living up to the standards they expect. The people keeping the standards tend to be proud and don't associate with the people who don't keep the standards. The love that is supposed to characterize Christians is missing.

 

[AverageJoe]

I respect your decision, but it is unclear -- there are three types of things that people call "legalism"
First, there is what I'll call "true legalism" - they truly preach personal preferences: preaching against men wearing whites shoes. Similar to this, but treated as a joke are comments about brands of soda, car brands, sports teams, coffee etc. I think such joking comments are very unwise, but I wouldn't call them legalism.
Second, there is what I call "false legalism" - this kind (and the next one) are what I most often hear complaints about. This is usually invoked about people who have different standards (usually higher standards) than our own. When we disagree with another about hair length, Bible versions, dress standards, music, drinking, etc, it is not appropriate to label it "legalism". We ought to say that we don't agree with their standards, or their interpretation of Biblical principles, but they are not legalists.
The third kind of what I'll call "practical legalism" - this is the case when a church obsesses about the standards that they hold: there seems to be a constant preaching about their standards; at least every month, they will mention hair standards, or dress standards, etc. They have lost sight of exalting God and are all about their rules. I also find this to be pretty common. Churches like this tend to "blackball" people that aren't living up to the standards they expect. The people keeping the standards tend to be proud and don't associate with the people who don't keep the standards. The love that is supposed to characterize Christians is missing.

Though I appreciate the breakdown you gave, I have to say that LEGALISM IS LEGALISM...you can call it what you will. It's still pharisaical nonsense on the part of the people who would like to control others. I was suspended from a Baptist College in a local church years ago (I was 18), because my hair touched the top of my ears. Of course, I was in classes from 7 AM to 2 PM, and had my own business, but had to also work an outside business to help keep my business afloat. I worked from 3 PM until 1 AM every day except Sunday, and barbers aren't open on Sundays and Monday if they're union, which all in our area were. The administrator told me that the Bible says "Long hair on a man is a sin..." Really? I find a Scripture where a question is asked, "Doesn't nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him?" UGH! They couldn't back up their PREFERENCES and added to the Bible to create a position of control. They got called on it more than once by several of the male students. They also gave demerits for one being forced to be out of church on a Wednesday evening or Sunday evening. I don't find a Scripture that says that a person should be in every single service....Legalism kills the spirit of the law....Grace is the best way to go, and I found very little grace in the IFB churches I was in. Have I forgiven these pharisees? Of course...Have I forgotten what they did? No. And I doubt I ever will. I don't want to be like that.

 

[Ransom]

"Legalism" can be defined in multiple ways (more than three, for example):

1. Attempts to become right with God through meritorious obedience. This was the Galatian error: the Gentiles were being pressured to live as Jews by following the Law of Moses ("having begun in the Spirit, do you think you can finish your salvation in the flesh?"). We would rightly repudiate this if formulated as, "To become right with God you need to do ______," but it also exists in the reverse form: "Unless you do ______, you aren't right with God." There are no shortage of present-day Pharisees who will judge the genuineness of someone's faith by their performance: "it takes three to thrive," yada yada.

2. Imposition of the Law on Gentiles, for whom it was never intended. Again, explicitly the Galatian error. But, for example, the misapplication of Malachi 3:10, to argue that the Mosaic tithe is still binding on Christians, tells me that Galatianism is still among us today.

3. Focusing on minor matters of the Law to avoid its weightier and less explicit implications. This is what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for in Matthew 23:23: being assiduous to tithe even their spices, but ignoring injustice. Why are fundy preachers always so obsessed with women wearing pants or short skirts or sleeveless tops? It's easier to dictate a dress code than keep his own lust under control.

4. Application of the Law, elevated to the level of the Law itself. The Pharisees had all sorts of restrictions on what you could do on the Sabbath, based on what they considered to be "work," including showing mercy (Mark 3:1-6). These are the "hedge" rules: rules put in place to avoid breaking the main rule. For example, the Bible forbids drunkenness. To avoid breaking this rule, our modern-day Pharisees will erect a "hedge" around it, forbidding any alcohol at all--or even eating or shopping in establishments where alcohol is sold to others. "Secondary separation" is another example of this: we are not to join in the evil practices of the world, so it would be better if we kept away from worldly people--or other Christians who befriend them.

 

[voicecrying]

This is usually invoked about people who have different standards (usually higher standards) than our own.

Calling them "higher" standards is where problems arise. "Higher" implies better. "More stringent/strict" or even "more numerous" seems a better way to label them.