Legalism
Legalism
I have a question regarding legalism. At what point would you define something as being legalistic? My question stems from a definition I heard given on Steve’s verse-by-verse teaching on Galatians. On one of those tapes Steve mentioned that if we are worrying too much about something that doesn’t directly have to do with salvation then we are being legalistic about that issue (that’s a very rough paraphrase). An example comes to mind with respect to musical instruments in worship. Some feel that they should never be used because they find no basis for using them in the New Testament. Based on the above definition of legalism, judging a congregation for using musical instruments would be a form of legalism since the use of or lack of musical instruments has nothing to do with salvation. So, what about something like the form or timing of baptism? Would you be a legalist if you judged whether someone was a Christian based on the type of baptism they had or because a person was baptized as a child? To further complicate matters, what if you believed that baptism WAS necessary for salvation? If you hold to this belief are you being a legalist when it comes to someone who is not baptized?
Re: Legalism
To expect a believer to be subject to the commands of Christ is not legalism—it is Lordship.
The command to be baptized, like all commands of Christ, is mandatory, though it is understood differently by different Christians. It seem to me that the scriptures are clear on the matter of baptism, but, in judging others, we must take into account the fact that, to many, the matter may have been rendered more obscure by centuries of confused tradition. To debate against the tradition may be a completely legitimate option, but care must be taken in judging others about their blind spots.
If one, wishing to be obedient, has studied out the matter and, as a result, holds a different view that ours about modes, formulas, or even timing of baptism, I think we must leave it to their conscience before God, and entrust the improvement of their views (as well as our own) to the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit. The goal of baptism seems to be "the answer of a good conscience toward God" (1 Pet.3:21). If the person described above has a clear conscience about the matter, it is still possible that the Holy Spirit (and not church rules) may, at some future time, impress further duties upon the conscience yielded to Him.
If this is true of something as plainly taught in scripture as is baptism (and some here may not agree that it is), then how much more so with things not plainly addressed in the New Testament (like musical instruments)?
Also, with reference to one "worrying too much about something that doesn’t directly have to do with salvation", I would clarify that I believe we cannot exclude from our fellowship brethren who disagree with us on such matters, but this does not mean we should never seek to change their opinions, where we think it important or helpful. If we find them humbly unconvinced by our brilliant arguments, however, we can not judge them as deficient Christians.
The command to be baptized, like all commands of Christ, is mandatory, though it is understood differently by different Christians. It seem to me that the scriptures are clear on the matter of baptism, but, in judging others, we must take into account the fact that, to many, the matter may have been rendered more obscure by centuries of confused tradition. To debate against the tradition may be a completely legitimate option, but care must be taken in judging others about their blind spots.
If one, wishing to be obedient, has studied out the matter and, as a result, holds a different view that ours about modes, formulas, or even timing of baptism, I think we must leave it to their conscience before God, and entrust the improvement of their views (as well as our own) to the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit. The goal of baptism seems to be "the answer of a good conscience toward God" (1 Pet.3:21). If the person described above has a clear conscience about the matter, it is still possible that the Holy Spirit (and not church rules) may, at some future time, impress further duties upon the conscience yielded to Him.
If this is true of something as plainly taught in scripture as is baptism (and some here may not agree that it is), then how much more so with things not plainly addressed in the New Testament (like musical instruments)?
Also, with reference to one "worrying too much about something that doesn’t directly have to do with salvation", I would clarify that I believe we cannot exclude from our fellowship brethren who disagree with us on such matters, but this does not mean we should never seek to change their opinions, where we think it important or helpful. If we find them humbly unconvinced by our brilliant arguments, however, we can not judge them as deficient Christians.