Here is something that I have never heard before. It came to me out of the blue about a week ago. So here goes.
Most Christians today understand that the fundamentalist legalism of old was the wrong definition and application of Sanctification. In other words, the "saved by grace, kept by works" (works by your own energy that is), wasn't correct doctrine. This type of legalism was a "don't do-ism." But to be fair, today we have the new legalism which is a "do-ism." In other words, if you do this or that you will please God. In some movements the assurance of your salvation is implied if you do whatever their particular movement says to do--i.e. prayer and fast so many days (or even weeks), help the poor, and so forth.
Just for fun, let's look at the old legalism in another way and perhaps we will find that the old-timers were onto something that we may be missing today in the church.
Let me asure you that I am not advocating for us to go back and do legalism like churches used to do. But could we do it another way? Could we do it through teaching from the pulpit and Sunday Schools as to the results and consequences of certain actions? So then, let's take a look at the old-time legalism in another way.
Don't smoke
Would it be fair to say that those old-time Christians that didn't smoke would be healthier, at least lung-wise and many heart-wise? Probably so, unless there were other factors involved such as eating too much fat (heart) or working in mines (lungs).
Don't drink
Although most of us know the Bible doesn't prohibit the drinking of low alcoholic-content drinks such as beer and wine, did not drinking at all prevent alcoholism and the attendant health problems including liver diseases?
Don't chew
For those of you in California and other blue states, this means chewing something called "chewing tobacco." You know, like some baseball players. Do you think perhaps that the Christians who didn't chew didn't have high rates of tongue and mouth cancer?
Don't gamble
Christians who didn't gamble didn't get addicted to it did they? And they didn't lose their money through that means.
Don't go to movies
Although the movies were tame in those days compared to today, they still had the women with the flirtatious looks and then eventually kissing. Remember, people were not used to this type of thing in open society and so it might have certainly titilated. It also led to opening movies up to all kinds of sex and violence beginning in the 1960's. I don't know if you can prove this, but I wonder if there was less sexual temptation for Christians who didn't go to movies. I didn't say they never got tempted, only less tempted. Christians today think they are real smart and can take all the movies they see without searing their consciences. I have news for you. They are plain worng and deceive themselves. Check all the Christian men including pastors who are hooked on porn. I wonder if movies from a young age (and now TV) opened this up for them. I think it would be interesting to do a survey. Let's ask those who are hooked on porn what their movie history habits were, and those who don't watch porn what their movie history habits are. Of course I could be wrong as perhaps the non-movie people might do porn out of curiosity. But overall, and this is not a legalistic statement at all, I believe Christians are much better off not attending the majority of today's movies. Yes, I know about the message, the photography, the needing to go so we can talk about them with non-Christians, blah, blah, blah. I don't buy it. I probably know just as much about what is playing in the movie theaters today as anyone who goes each week because I read the movie section of the daily Los Angeles Times every day of the week. I read all of the reviews and look at the movie ads. I can talk intelligently with anyone who has gone to a movie. And so could you, frankly.
Don't dance
Same as above. Titilation.
To sum up, do you think that perhaps the old-time Christians weren't as stupid as we thought after all?
How to Become a Christian
23 hours ago
5 comments:
I wrote something a little while back about putting "hedges" around the law -- whether OT or NT -- to keep you from sinning. In short, setting up rules for yourself to keep you from going down the wrong path is good; looking down on people who don't keep your rules is bad.
I recently heard what I thought was a nice analogy of biblical law being like the solid white line in the center of the road you keep your eye on when its foggy and your driving. You "hug the white line" in those situations when you can't see where your going otherwise on nice driving days you can stay focused straight ahead use peripheral vision etc and relax a little.
Today depending on the church and or who is preaching whether it be books,radio or in person I feel like I loose my sense of safety at times so personally I would rather 'hug the white line' in your examples are good. I don't know if it's the way people/christians have been discipled or what today but I fear many are headed for a wreck with there bad driving skills. It's like I see them coming and I stay clear as I know they are headed for a crash.
Yes I love grace but I also love the law. Jesus did too.
Good comments guys.
I agree! I would define legalism as the view (or the attitude) that our righteousness comes from the things we do as opposed to the imputed righteousness that is given to us from Christ. We as believers can (and should) pursue holiness by forsaking some things, while acknowledging that it is Christ alone who is our righteousness. (Didn't Paul deal with this???) In short, what makes the difference is the attitude we have while we are giving up these things. Are we motivated out of love for our Savior and a desire for a deeper, more intimate relationship with Him, or is our motivation the belief that we are earning some celestial tick marks that make us more holy? The latter is legalism. The former is taking up our cross daily and following Jesus.
To sum up, I think they went as far out-of-balance in one direction as everybody else went out-of-balance in the other direction.
Either Chesterton or Lewis said that "The Devil sends sins in matched opposing pairs, so that in fleeing from one we commit the other."
I wrote something a little while back about putting "hedges" around the law -- whether OT or NT -- to keep you from sinning. -- ChrisB
Problem with such "hedges" is they can start down the following road:
1) I have more hedges than you, I have more strict hedges than you, so I must be Holier than you. (Like "Fast Eddie" in my RCIA, who reinterpreted the Good Friday fast as no food or water at all for the entire Easter Triuudium; of the Pharisees with their hedges upon hedges; or the Jihadis who show they are more devout than other Muslims by not just touching but smashing their head against the stone floor of the mosque during public prayer/devotions to the point of bleeing and concussion.)
2) Four words: CAN YOU TOP THIS?
Post a Comment