Legalism V. Liberalism: Sisters Separated at Birth?
Ok so I've been giving this some thought while at work. I have enjoyed the comments that people have left and they have helped shape what I am about to say. These thoughts are not the final word (obviously not to all of you but I also mean in my own thoughts). So here is what I'm thinking...
What I am struck by is this, legalism and liberalism are actually closely related. They are like estranged sisters who refuse to talk to one another. Let me show the similarity.
First the legalist - they believe that God meant for His law to be obeyed and they feel that the way to be spiritual is to obey all of God's commands. God rewards those who obey. They cite many verse such as, "The Lord loves obedience rather than sacrifice" and you've heard the rest. Anyone who does not follow God's law as they see it is not a 'good' Christian. Hence a works based system.
Next the liberal - they believe that Jesus came to be an example to the world. Jesus' objective was to enact social change through disrupting the status quo (thanks for the quote Ando). We are to follow Jesus' example in order to be His disciples. The point is not whether or not Jesus walked on the water but that He fed people and healed the sick (they would question the miraculous nature but applaud the goodness of Jesus' work). So we should continue His good work by taking care of the needed, etc. Also a works based system!
I think we all know the differences between a legalist and liberal. We may find ourselves interacting with legalists because they would believe much the same way as we do about the Scripture, Jesus, miracles, etc. We would not want to associate with the liberal because they deny much of what we believe about these things. However, I'm shocked to think that legalists maybe so closely related to liberals. Could they both really be works based systems? Tell me what you guys think.
What I am struck by is this, legalism and liberalism are actually closely related. They are like estranged sisters who refuse to talk to one another. Let me show the similarity.
First the legalist - they believe that God meant for His law to be obeyed and they feel that the way to be spiritual is to obey all of God's commands. God rewards those who obey. They cite many verse such as, "The Lord loves obedience rather than sacrifice" and you've heard the rest. Anyone who does not follow God's law as they see it is not a 'good' Christian. Hence a works based system.
Next the liberal - they believe that Jesus came to be an example to the world. Jesus' objective was to enact social change through disrupting the status quo (thanks for the quote Ando). We are to follow Jesus' example in order to be His disciples. The point is not whether or not Jesus walked on the water but that He fed people and healed the sick (they would question the miraculous nature but applaud the goodness of Jesus' work). So we should continue His good work by taking care of the needed, etc. Also a works based system!
I think we all know the differences between a legalist and liberal. We may find ourselves interacting with legalists because they would believe much the same way as we do about the Scripture, Jesus, miracles, etc. We would not want to associate with the liberal because they deny much of what we believe about these things. However, I'm shocked to think that legalists maybe so closely related to liberals. Could they both really be works based systems? Tell me what you guys think.
posted by RJ-77 at 9:08 PM
15 Comments:
Good thoughts.
Good word RJ. I never thought about it in that light. I would definitely agree with you. It is so easy to get caught up into legalism too because we do know that a christian is one who has been changed by Christ and has bee created for good works and yet they do not save in any way shape or form. It is only through Christ's sacrifice for sin that we can be saved. Thanks for the post
Hi,
Please be careful. Paul was a false apostle who preached we could be free from the law when in fact that is not the case.
Psalm 111 instructs us that the commandments are for ever and ever.
Deut 12:32:
What thing soever I command you, observe and do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it
Deut 13:4:
Ye shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice...
Paul was not ordained an apostle (Mat 10)
Paul DIDN'T qualify to be an apostle (Acts 1:16-26)
Paul's gospel is caught in error..
he tells us there were 12 apostles seen by christ after his reserection...remember Judas was dead. Luke, Matthew, Mark and acts all tell us about 11..
but Paul told us 12 in 1 cor 15:5. His conversion story is caught in error too...compare his stories in acts 22 and acts 26.
There is so much more.
But what it really comes down to is this question...whom will you listen to? God (who says to obey) or Paul (who says we are free)?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
You believe that God allowed his Word to corrupted by Paul? I understand that there are lots of traslations, but the letters from Paul are widely accepted as God breathed scriptures.
Understand also that the life Paul was leaving was that of a scrit legalist. He both clings to in in some passages and distances himself from it in others. That makes sense from a mans perspective. Trying to understand what was of God in his education, and what was of man. I think there is room in Christ for Pauls' teaching.
Mr Return to Righteousness,
If you read through the epistles and the account of Acts you will find that Paul was converted on the road to Damascus by Christ himself. Christ made him the apostle to the Gentiles. You must be careful to examine all of the scriptures before you make statements like that. 2 tim 3:16-17
Interestingly enough,
It was over liberal theology that fundamentalism gave birth. A group of believers who desired to get back to the Bible if you will in 1921 I believe held a conference where they wrote 5 Fundamentals of the faith. Their oponnents as a result of this gave them the name, Fundamentalists and that is why we have the Reluctant Fundie.
Hi,
You mentioned Paul was converted on the road...
Someone lied about his conversion...there are 2 different stories. If you have a Bible with the red letters of Christ it will show him saying 2 different things!
Compare his conversion (what Christ tells him to do) in acts 22 and the other "story" in acts 26
Kludge,
Christ said the "wheat" and the "tarres" are allowed to grow together until the end.
Return to Righteousness,
You are absolutely right. Only by strict obedience to the law can a person even remotely be considered for the kingdom of heaven. How are you doing so far? Broken any laws in your life time? If so how will they be taken care of?
There are not two different conversion stories. Both chapter 22 and 26 of Acts show Paul saying the same thing, one is a more detailed account and one is the Readers Digest version. There really isn't any difference there.
You also understand that the law was put into place to point us to Christ because it can not be kept. Romans 1-3 clearly states this. Also, the Old Testament saints were saved by faith to(Heb.11) They looked forward to Christ while we look back. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him. Moses, David, Daniel all believed God. They were not justified by their works. Read Galatians and you will see this
Found this article from the LA Times today. I thought it appropriate and relevent to the original question.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-allen9jul09,0,2668973.story?coll=la-headlines-sports-mlb-angels
Good posts guys. I guess we scared off return to legal...I mean righteousness! Good quotes/info/articles.
Just in case he comes back...he should read this.
http://contendersbiblestudy.blogspot.com/2006/07/was-paul-false-apostle.html
Post a Comment
<< Home