I've heard the charges of Legalism in
Catholicism for the belief that you must accept all Church teachings and morals to stay in Gods good graces.
Islam for the strict lifestyle of wearing a Burka, praying 5 times a day, and abstinence from pork and Alcohol.
Reformation Church for disallowing any types of decorations in the Church.
Puritan Churches for their strict rules against anything that was pleasurable.
Independent Baptist for their rules about women in pants, adherence to the KJV, strict hell teachings, and other strict rules having not biblical backup.
One form of legalism is to believe someone is not of christ if they do not measure up to the consensus of a group.
For instance, I have maintained for years that the vast majority of atheists are not rejecting God, but rejecting the religious association that one has when believing in God. Many people will be legalistic and maintain that because they have declared themselves an atheist that indeed they are rejecting the one true God.
So as a result they show their legalism rather than the spirituality, they claim to have.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2010, 07:49:40 AM
One form of legalism is to believe someone is not of christ if they do not measure up to the consensus of a group.
For instance, I have maintained for years that the vast majority of atheists are not rejecting God, but rejecting the religious association that one has when believing in God. Many people will be legalistic and maintain that because they have declared themselves an atheist that indeed they are rejecting the one true God.
So as a result they show their legalism rather than the spirituality, they claim to have.
Yes, and surprisingly, legalism of this sort worms its way into UR circles, even still! Too bad!
RA
But legalism doesnt seem so bad in Universalist Circles.
Quote from: Raggedy Anne on June 24, 2010, 10:45:14 AMYes, and surprisingly, legalism of this sort worms its way into UR circles, even still! Too bad!
Quote from: Universalist Catholic on June 24, 2010, 03:32:41 PMBut legalism doesnt seem so bad in Universalist Circles.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2010, 07:49:40 AMOne form of legalism is to believe someone is not of christ if they do not measure up to the consensus of a group.
There is no legalism in UR because it's not large enough and or there are no real leaders.
Say UR would become mainstream with 1 biljon followers, then there would be as many denominations as ET has right now.
(no)Free will. (no)Trinity. LoF is (not)now. LoF is (not) conscious. (no) Soul sleep. => enough debate for several denominations.
When a group gets to large it splits in smaller groups.
:cloud9: My :2c: The epitome of legalism is not walking in the Spirit. Blessings...
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 24, 2010, 03:59:37 PM
Quote from: Raggedy Anne on June 24, 2010, 10:45:14 AMYes, and surprisingly, legalism of this sort worms its way into UR circles, even still! Too bad!
Quote from: Universalist Catholic on June 24, 2010, 03:32:41 PMBut legalism doesnt seem so bad in Universalist Circles.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2010, 07:49:40 AMOne form of legalism is to believe someone is not of christ if they do not measure up to the consensus of a group.
There is no legalism in UR because it's not large enough and or there are no real leaders.
Say UR would become mainstream with 1 biljon followers, then there would be as many denominations as ET has right now.
(no)Free will. (no)Trinity. LoF is (not)now. LoF is (not) conscious. (no) Soul sleep. => enough debate for several denominations.
When a group gets to large it splits in smaller groups.
You may be saying the same thing in a way, I think legalism exists in UR it just doesn't have the impact on large numbers of people.
thepathoftruth is a group of legalistic universalists who came here and made the accusation that since we did not measure up to their image of bibical intepretation then we were displeasing to God and not actually worshipping him at all.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 25, 2010, 03:26:12 AMthepathoftruth is a group of legalistic universalists who came here and made the accusation that since we did not measure up to their image of bibical intepretation then we were displeasing to God and not actually worshipping him at all.
"Here" is TM I assume. That was before I regged here. Was is a whole group/several people?
I wouldn't be suprised. A bit like Paul C and his drone that followed when he was booted. That was scary. He looked almost like a pope to her.
Paul Cohen and pathoftruth are the same group, so yes, you know them :mshock:.
I often find myself pegging legalists in the same file as fundamentalists . . .I was both at one time. For me, to be a legalist, you "are" a fundamentalist because a fundamentalist is one who emphasizes the letter of the law/Scripture and a legalist is one who enforces those things to keep themselves as well as others in accordance. Often times, guilt, shame and humiliation are tools used to influence and control the motivation of others to get in line. It's all about outward appearances.
The assumption is, if you have outward signs of possible ungodliness, then you obviously have inward issues that must be dealt with through conforming to the letter of the law. You don't see a whole lot of grace or mercy when dealing with legalists or fundamentalists, either one. Even though grace and mercy does seem to be the platform Jesus established in his own ministry, but somehow, that gets overlooked. I can't inflict guilt, shame and humiliation if I'm applying grace and mercy, so I'll just push that part aside so I can get my point across and tell you how displeased God is with you.
Great post. :thumbsup: