Forum Discussion, First Attempt.
I would like to do something a little bit different here. If you read our blog on any sort of a regular basis, I want to propose a question. But before I ask it, I want you to commit to praying for a while before you respond. And make sure that your response is biblical, and is not taken out of context. If you have time to do this, I think there could be great fruit from the discussion. Please keep the discussion civil, do not use ad hominem or straw-man reasoning either please. Wikipedia is a great resource if you are not sure what those words mean. Also keep in mind that I am fairly confident, at this point, only believers frequent this site. So there is peace in knowing that this is an in-house discussion, but please do not use that as license to get frustrated.
O.K. here is the question: What is legalism? As it pertains to Christianity!
Please remember to keep your responses based on scripture as much as possible. If a side-topic comes up as a result, I will determine if it is worth pursuing in another thread, but please keep it as focused on the topic as possible. And Austin, you cannot reply first 
.
The person who responds with the best biblical definition, and I have one in mind, I will send a book of my choosing. I will wait a few weeks before deciding, based on when the discussion fizzles out. And Austin can’t win…sorry bro. If noone defines it as well as I am hoping then the book will go to the individual who contributes the best overall to the structure of the discussion.
One last thought, we are all on equal ground, for “God accepts no mans person.” Galatians 2:6
Matthew Thiring says:
November 25th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
If I just had to give a definition it would read something like this.
Christian Legalism: The belief that rightness with God is obtained through the observance of some moral law or code of ethics, rather than faith alone.
Let me know if your looking for answers with more explanation, and I would be happy to cover why I think this is a fitting definition.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
November 25th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I hope that more people follow up with their definitions, however this is a great way to begin. I think I detect that someone wants a book. Here is where I would like you to springboard off that statement. 1.) Define “rightness,” 2.) Show me from scripture the most absolutely concentrated portion of scripture that deals with this issue. Single verses are acceptable, but I believe there are entire swaths that would structure what you are saying. 3.) Yes, please explain why you have concluded this.
And as an encouragement to everyone who cares, I would love to attack this question with as much enthusiasm as Gordi Laforge, and Data would have if they were trying to reverse-engineer a Klingon bird of Prey’s cloaking device…
I am hoping to raise this concept to the light of the Word and understand as many facets of it as possible.
Joseph Arsenault says:
November 26th, 2009 at 2:12 am
The first scripture that comes to mind is Mathew 23:1-36 where Jesus describes the condition of the scribes and Pharisees in length. Although they may seem to be righteous by tithing their spices and obeying the “law” of God they were only doing those things outwardly to be seen by men but there hearts were far from God.
All to often we think that our rightness with God can come by any thing that we do and we can be caught up in a legalistic Christianity just like the Pharisees. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says that; “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” We play no part in our salvation, everything is done by Him and through Him. We are to only accept that the work has already been done. In short Christian legalism is the thinking we can purchase our salvation through our works.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
November 26th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
How would you define it Austin?
austin says:
November 26th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I think Matthew’s definition is correct. But this word has often been mis-defined as, . . . Whenever anyone attempts to live a life that conforms to the commands of scripture, and encourage others to do the same. The idea has permeated Christendom that since we are saved by grace, attempting to live a life pleasing to God is legalism. When scripture clearly tells us that grace trains us to live self controlled, upright and godly lives.
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, Titus 2:11-12
Mark Melton says:
November 26th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
When a woman is worried about her eternal security because she is bound by man made laws telling her that if she wears make up, pants, has short hair or never speaks in tongue that she is in danger of hell fire.
True story.
Jeremy Nehf says:
November 27th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Hope I am not too late.
1st
the word-
legal- pertaining to the law
ism- (n) doctrine, philosophy, philosophical system, school of thought, ism (a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school)
2nd
I think the most specific verses that I can think of is in Galatians
2:16 or 3:11 (ESV) Both say basically the same thing only restated.
2:16 “yet we know that a person is not *justified* by the *works* of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified”
3:11″Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “the righteous shall live by faith”
3rd
To some it up. Whenever a person lives by a set of rules and seeks by the keeping of those rules to be justified by himself, others, or God he is a “legalist”. God speaks only one language and uses only one currency. It is the language and currency of faith in what He has done through the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. (all 4 are important)
Jeremy Nehf says:
November 27th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Further contemplation on this issue:
In Romans 14:23 we are told that “whatever is not of faith is sin” in Context this is talking about the issue of eating or not eating meat and how that affects others. He sums up the chapter with this statement. Having a good definition of faith is helpful here. I have always loved Hebrews 11:6 “…for he that comes to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards of those seek Him ”
Everything we do must be filtered though this. Because as the first part of the verse in Heb 11:6 says with out faith (the belief that He exists and that He is good) it is *impossible* to please Him”
Now having said that, here is the kicker as I was thinking this through… Sin is doing something to reach a godly pleasure in an earthly way. I am not confident that God in His goodness, will fulfill the desires that I have, so I in turn meet the need myself. It is because I lack faith, that I resort to this. Every sin issue is a faith issue. Legalism is the lack of faith that says,”God couldn’t just save by grace alone could He?” Those that are justified before God are those who cling to the nature of God and believe in His goodness. He really is good enough to send His son, and in Him to reconcile the world unto Himself!
Koron Mays says:
November 27th, 2009 at 4:53 am
Great question. I would define it as rules that GOD does not require, or as religion without a relationship with JESUS CHRIST. I would also describe it as an english word that starts with the letter “L”.
Carol says:
November 27th, 2009 at 11:25 am
My explanation of legalism: It’s when we impose laws or rules on ourselves that God never intended.
Short and sweet.
Blessings,
Carol
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
November 27th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
So far it is heading exactly where I had hoped it would. The pinpoint issue is the issue of justification and justification alone. Right standing with God, only comes by Grace. I was also hoping that Galatians would come to the fore of the discussion because I think that Galatians is the penultimate letter dealing with this issue (thank you Jeremy for doing it. Biblical in the extreme.) Ironically if you break out your concordance, the word never exists in scripture anywhere. Since this book came up as I hoped it would, I want to now raise the bar a little bit in our understanding. Is it any coincidence at all that the issue of legalism as it is raised by Paul in chapter 2 is the issue of circumcision? Or does this just happen to be a coincidence?
Also, Jeremy you are absolutely right for bringing faith into it. I often wonder for me if there is any more powerful example of what God intends for man than those verses on faith that you bring up.
I kind of want to hover for a few posts from everyone to look at that moment of justification as well. When a person has already been justified and it is a done deal, does the word legalism take on a new dynamic? Because if we are honest, the issue of legalism in Galatians where Peter gets rebuked, it is because Peter is associating with people who are promoting justification apart from the blood of Christ and his work on the Cross. This distinction is essential, I cannot emphasize its importance more, but I do not yet want to give away entirely what I am hoping this discussion will lead to.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
November 27th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Carol, adding to Gods word is also a massive element, thank you. Could you embellish a bit on how exactly that occurs, and maybe give us an example of that?
Koron, kudos for the humor.
Matthew Thiring says:
November 27th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Perhaps the definition I have given would be better stated
“The belief that justification is obtained through the observance of some moral law or code of ethics, rather than faith alone.”
I think the scripture that best deals with this issue in it’s entirety is the Epistle of Galatians. In it, Paul deals with the issue of legalism head on. Paul wastes no time in expressing his disapproval of what the Galatians had done when he says that he is astonished that they are so quickly deserting the gospel that he had given to them and that some were troubling them because they wanted to distort the gospel of Christ. How were they distorting the gospel? Galatians 2:21 says “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. It is this verse for which I used the word through in my definition. The Galatians were not denying that faith is an element of justification, but that they were adding something prior to faith.
Paul tells us in Galatians 3:10 “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse”, he then goes on to say in 5:1 that “ For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery”.
Legalism is not only the belief that our justification is obtained through observing law. Legalism is slavery.
To some this appears to be antinomian. However, Paul tells us how we are to obey God. Galatians 5:16,18 tells us that we must “walk by the Spirit” and that those led by the Spirit “are not under the law”. This is not our spirit. It is the Spirit of God that dwells within us, the Spirit that we receive through faith alone.
“Faith plus anything ruins everything” ~ Mark Driscoll
Matthew Thiring says:
November 27th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
My last comment looks out of place. I kept getting pulled away, and when I refreshed…a whole bunch of people had said some stuff…lol
Matthew Thiring says:
November 27th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I think the circumcision aspect is important. In Romans Paul writes “For no one is a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.”
We could reason that legalism is a circumcision of the flesh, and faith is a circumcision of the heart.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
November 27th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
BOOOM. This understanding is explosive. I am really having to resist the desire to comment more. Thank you Matthew, you are hitting the nail so on the head.
Jeremy Nehf says:
November 27th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
On the difference between legalism before you are regenerated and after:
While still unregenerate, a person seeks to retain God as debtor. He may perform some act of service or adhere to some moral code thinking that this is what justifies him before God. The common phrase I hear is, “I just try to be a good person” The subtle push here is that we try to earn God’s grace and get Him to weigh us in some sort of imaginary scale set to our own understanding of what it means to be righteous. We fail in this regard to understand that the only righteousness that God accepts is HIS OWN. We have to be as righteous as He is. Perfection. We fall short no matter what. we sound like a guy bartering with a cop at a traffic stop. “But officer, I didn’t speed yesterday! You should therefore let me off.” The cop will then say,”yeah, but you did today.” The righteousness that we seek to attain while unregenerate has the self or others as the only point of reference.
The dynamics after salvation change slightly. Most believers hold to the gospel and have an understanding (though limited) of what Christ accomplished for us. But we feel that in order to MAINTAIN that good standing there are works of some law system to be performed.
When compared to circumcision it may look like this:
Unregenerate- I will get circumcised to gain God’s grace. Once I have fulfilled that obligation, God owes me His grace.
Regenerate- God gave me His grace. I don’t want to lose that and I know my own weaknesses so I better do more to keep God happy. I’ll go get circumcised!
The problem is that both are focused on the external. If I make an outward showing of what God wants then doesn’t that count? The answer:
No. God is seeking those that honor Him not just with their lips, but have their heart engaged as well. He wants people with a PASSION for HIM personally. Not eye service, or lip service, but a glory-filled affection for Him.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
November 27th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
So…since Galatians has been brought into it, and we have pretty fairly covered the topic of what legalism is. Has anyone in their own Bible reading noticed what the “hinge” of the book of Galatians is? I do not really know how to ask this question without giving it away, but I will hint that it is a question that Paul asks of the Galatians in the middle of the book.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
November 27th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
glory filled affection…what a concept. Have you noticed also Jeremy that the word Glory is an overarching theme of the book of Galatians?
Jeremy Nehf says:
November 27th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Hadn’t picked that up actually.
Jeremy Nehf says:
November 27th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
having begun ins the Spirit are you now made perfect in the flesh?
Just a guess.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
November 27th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Yup. “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” Galatians 3:1-3.
I personally feel as if this is the thesis question of the book. I think that the whole issue of Paul’s conversion, his time in the desert, learning the revelation of the gospel from Jesus, his appearance to the other Apostles, and his whole discussion about what happened in Jerusalem with Peter was all a preface to ask this major question.
Within these questions there is both a statement, and an expectation. This question is rhetorical obviously, but what are the implications of his questions? Think about when Paul asks the first part of the question, “that you should not obey the truth.”
Do these verses indicate, I guess I am asking, through the device of rhetoric, that obedience is expected? When he says, “Made perfect by the flesh,” is this a negating of being perfected? Or is this a way of asking a question sarcastically to drive them to a conclusion about how it really is supposed to be done?
Matthew Thiring says:
November 28th, 2009 at 12:18 am
I think he’s mocking them. He’s saying, “you began with the Spirit”, as if to say,” what could possible be better than the spirit. Is it possible to take something that is by its nature imperfect (flesh), and make something that is already perfect more perfect? Surely this is foolish. I think Paul clears this answer up as well in Galatians 5:17 “For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and desires of the Spirit are against the flesh”.
austin says:
November 28th, 2009 at 12:48 am
And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Galatians 5:24
The crucifying of the passions and desires is not a prerequisite for, or contractual obligation of the new covenant. The fruit of belonging to Christ is the crucifixion of the flesh. Like the Turkish Delight in the Chronicles of Narnia, fellowship with Christ makes the world’s banquet taste like gravel.
Jeremy Nehf says:
November 28th, 2009 at 1:54 am
Austin, not to derail the thread (Jeremiah can shut me down if he wants) How do you see the crucifying of the flesh working out when it comes to sanctification? Is this the daily death that gets talked about? I am asking because I have a hard time discerning when a brother is struggling and needs encouragement and when he is just carnal and needs a rebuke. Feel free to FB an answer so it doesn’t get off topic.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
November 28th, 2009 at 7:51 am
I don’t think it is off topic at all, I think it is a massive part of what we are talking about here. I am hoping that this discussion can help us in discerning that exact thing, because it is ultimately where I am leading the conversation. I think one of the reasons we have a hard time these days with exhortation and rebuke is because the word “Legalism” gets pasted on so many things that the “Spiritual” believer says. There are a couple things I want to cover before we get there however.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
November 28th, 2009 at 7:52 am
By the way, the hours that this page posts your statements is two hours off from west coast time…
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
November 28th, 2009 at 8:30 am
OK Mathew, since it is a mocking tone, and Paul concludes that the Spirit wages its war against the flesh, the question really becomes down to one incredibly important thing. And I think this is the full crux of the matter and where we can go so wrong as Christians, and also lose out so much on what it means to be free in Christ.
I think a way to re-word Paul’s question in a non-mocking tone could be, “How do you obey God?” The question never had anything to do with whether or not we should obey God’s commands, and This is where I feel that a lot of misinterpretation of Galatians comes in. Jeremy, you touched on it when you used the term “Antinomianism.”
The reason I think it is OK to reword the question in a positive sense is because Paul is asking sarcastically if they thought the “Flesh,” which is an allusion back to the issue of circumcision, was able to perfect us. If we think that “Flesh” in this mocking question is a random metaphor, we have missed the context, because Paul raised the whole issue of the “Creepers” In Chapter 2:4, and how they snuck into the privy to “Spy” out the freedom, or liberty that Titus had because of his lack of circumcision.
All of it has been a device to lead into this fundamental question. How does a Christian walk in the goal of God’s perfection?
For the second time in the New Testament, out of a series of three epistles, there is a thematic based upon the quote from Habakkuk 2:4, “The just shall live by faith.” -Galatians 2:11
Based upon the theme of the book so far, and our discussion about Galatians, is there two words of that sentence that it seems the book of Galatians is honing in on? You may have already heard the answer to this question in a sermon at one point, but it took me years to really notice this. The two words follow each other in the sentence and are not separated by other words, as a clue.
Jeremy Nehf says:
November 28th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
hahaha! I had never caught that! They had to “spy out” the freedom that Titus had in Christ! That is hilarious. They were over zealous “fruit” inspectors, trying to spy out the fruit of belief in the lives of others!
You might be referring to Galatians being focused on how the just SHALL LIVE.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
November 28th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Exact O Mundo the two words here “Shall Live,” are the opus of this book. that is exactly what Galatians is trying to instruct us in. I am not positive, but I think that Jude is referring to this privacy inspection when he says about the situation in Jude 4, “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the GRACE of our God into lasciviousness and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”
I know that Jude was a scholar in training, as he has so many references in his little epistle, I think it is actually one of the most reference concentrated epistles word for word in the entire New Testament, however a few of the references cannot be verified because some of the Apocryphal quotes he uses have been lost.
But the reason I bring it up is that it gives us a clue about Galatians, even if Jude is not directly talking about the privacy occurrence, his statement about creepers is completely applicable to these Judaizers, who creep into fellowships, churches, local bodies, and they try to nullify or turn the GRACE of God into a lewd debased thing.
So if the emphasis in Galatians is on “SHALL LIVE.” What then, (even though some of the verses have already been quoted) is the solution? What advice does Paul offer us on the issue of Growth? A lot of you already jumped ahead to some of the verses, but there are a few more in Galatians that can ripen our understanding.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
November 28th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I know the discussion is a bit long winded, but it cannot be summed up very easily or quickly, this is something I would probably teach in a three or four sermon session if I was to do it that way. So far I am radically grateful for everyone’s additions to the discussion. Suck in a bit more wind, we have a little further to go, but it will be edifying in the end.
Carol says:
November 29th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Jeremiah,
I don’t know if you still want examples because the conversation is gravitating towards Galatians. But if you still want them, I’ll give them but….putting it in blog format is not the greatest format when discussing issues in depth because my post is long and people will be scrolling for miles. Have you thought of creating a discussion board? There’s lots of free ones out there. Or can I email you my answer?
Blessings,
carol
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
November 29th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Willy and I are trying to work out a discussion board, or forum. We will probably be working on it for the next couple weeks. Feel free to email it, however I think in this one case it is ok to post it, as this blog post was more of an attempt to see if people were interested in using the blog as a means of fellowship, and sharpening. You could call it a guinea pig of sorts I guess. I hear what you mean about mad scrolling though :O).
Jeremy Nehf says:
November 30th, 2009 at 3:48 am
Saw this tonight as I read and thought I would paste it here because it sums up the Apostles take on the legalists. He calls them “dogs”, evildoers, and “mutilators”. Phil 3:2-3 “Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh”
The irony is that the very things that theses legalists think exalt them are what Paul is now using against them. They called gentiles “dogs” now Paul turns it on them. They felt exalted by their religious works, yet Paul calls them “evildoers”. Their circumcision was a badge of honor, Paul calls them “mutiators”. He sums it all up by saying those of faith are the true circumcision, and they put “NO CONFIDENCE IN THE FLESH”.
This is the solution He seems to suggest in the whole of Galatians.
Chapter 1
There is only one gospel don’t believe or receive another. Do what pleases God not men. Come to Him by faith. My life before Christ in religious activity made me an enemy of God and persecutor of His followers. (The end result of all religious systems) But God “called me by His grace” out of the flesh religious system.
Chapter 2
As I preached the gospel God moved and people got saved with the same efficacy as Peter. Only in the end I had to put Peter in his place because he was still clinging to that fleshy, legalistic system as well. No one, not even Peter (the first “Pope” HAHA!) is justified by the flesh. It is only by faith.
Chapter 3
Has there ever been a time where God accepted works? When you got saved? Did you earn the miracles performed among you by the Spirit? Was Abraham justified by works? No. It has always been that God justifies by faith. It has never changed the only way the righteous live is by faith. The law brings us like a foster care system to Christ. It tells us everything we do wrong so that we will give up on trying to earn it in the flesh and just let God make us His kids. Just rest and be a son by faith. Justifying yourself by works is a prison, come on out.
Chapter 4
We are heirs. God is your Daddy. His Spirit is living in you. Why wouldn’t you just enjoy that? The things of this world (religious rules for justification) are weak and make you slaves. Don’t go back! Don’t live the Hagar, Ishmael life. You can’t earn what God gives freely.
Chapter 5
“For freedom, Christ has set us free; STAND FIRM therefore, and DO NOT SUBMIT TO A YOKE OF SLAVERY!” If you seek to be justified by your works you have replaced Jesus and no longer need Him. “You have fallen from grace”. Those that want you to be more holy by cutting a little flesh, should go varsity and get the whole thing whacked! If you want to know how to be more holy. Obey the Spirit of God in your heart. Immerse yourself in obedience with His every step and you won’t fulfill your flesh’s lusts. If you have come to life by the Spirit, now live by the Spirit.
To sum it all up. There are a few ideas that stick out.
1) God has always only worked by faith and hasn’t changed.
2)You been set free from Juvi and have been adopted into Gods family. Just enjoy it.
3)You are going to have to resist that religious system. “Stand firm”, “do not submit”, cling to Jesus in faith.You can’t be perfected by the flesh. If you want victory over the flesh, submit to His Spirit.
Wow! Long but fun!
Jeremy Nehf says:
November 30th, 2009 at 3:49 am
Sorry for the lengthy response.
mike says:
November 30th, 2009 at 9:59 am
I read this about a week ago and it has changed a lot since then but I have been pondering it while i should have been working.
My first and heart felt response is that legalism is surrendering to the mundane. It is getting up in the morning as much as it is eating a bland turkey sandwich.
You say that you have a relationship with the designer and architect of the soul and spirit, yet your heart dies every morning when you sacrifice you true heart’s desires to participate in the processes which makes you the money you require to pursue this life necessities.
You say you have a relationship with the creator of the universe but you eat grapenuts and bland turkey sandwiches when your senses were created with the expectation of celebration and overwhelming pleasure.
When we allow the life we live to take way our joy, stifle our purpose, then defame the character of our God most worthy of worship and have become hypocrites.
In this lies the heart of hypocrisy, acting as though every moment of your life is not a perfect moment to live to the fullest, overflowing with Gods own spirit. Allowing the death that lives in this world to pull our hearts into the bleak grayness which fills humanity and tricks us into submitting to the overwhelming melancholy that is the deception.
For in him we live, and move, and have our being acts 17
mike says:
November 30th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Just walked away and realized i did come far enough back to the actual issue. In matt ch 17 Jesus addressed the legalists calling them hypocrites repeatedly, the legalist is the one who feels that their value is improved through any system, any belief, or any behavior other than the simple sacrificial love of their eternal father. The need becomes how to find value when the hypocrisy has already defeated the heart. the ot belief was that the jews were a chosen people, special, his own people, but as they were defeated in their ability to believe, they turned toward the system which was actually created to stimulate their hearts and lost sight of the love of their father.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
November 30th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Wow, Jeremy, That is a great observation about chapter one…the end of all religious activity made Paul a persecutor of Gods people. Chapter II, you kind of answered your own question about exhortation there. As we are to exhort one another daily, while it is called today lest by any means we harden our hearts as in the provocation. Spirit led exhortation is a good thing if done in love and not if it is launched from the base of legalism, but from the Spirit of Grace. So it would seem that legalism did take on a dynamic with Peter that needed to be rebuked…I think the rebuke to Peter is in Galatians for such a crazy thematic reason. It is so phenomenal how the Holy Spirit works all things for good. However I have a great deal of compassion on Peter, as it is so easy to fall under the yoke of the fear of men. As a response to your Chapter III Comments, amen…enter the kingdom of heaven as a child and remain one through faith. As long as we maintain that childlike faith, we are in a position to grow in grace. Legalism stifles growth. So if you have someone who is never overcoming sin, they have yet to lay hold of the grace of God completely. Or they have fallen into a system of legalism. All the rest are just fabulous comments.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
November 30th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Mike, If I did not know any better, your definition sounds like something C.S. Lewis would say. The system that was created to stimulate their hearts…I have been thinking about your definition all day long, it is very thought provoking. Could you explain just a bit more though by what you mean by how “The need becomes how to find value when the hypocrisy has already defeated the heart.”
I have always felt that one of the biggest cruxes of scripture is when the Israelites said that they would do everything God told them to do on the Mountain of Sinai, and when God came down…out of their pride they did not repent. Your statement kind of reminds me of that instance.
Thanks for joining in Mike…it has been years bro.
Mark Melton says:
December 1st, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Thought this was great:
“Legalism comes in many forms. I used to think that legalism was merely the outward working of morality attempting to influence or bring about an inner change of the heart. I saw legalism as all of those things that most fundamental baptists tell their people not to do in order to be more “Christ-like.” For example, many fundamentalists frown on women wearing makeup or pants. Many fundamentalists would cringe at the thought of using any version of the Bible other than the King James Version. Many fundamentalists would think that if you didn’t give an invitation at the end of a service, then you are disobeying the great commission, etc. In essence, legalism is very restrictive and it robs the joy of being a Christian right out of a person or a church that is bound by such things. The Apostle Paul denounced legalism in Galatians and Colossians as being one of the things that destroys joy in Christ while hindering real obedience to Christ.
However, C.J. Mahaney gives great insight on the inward working of legalism that many of us don’t consider. If I feel hindered by a past failure, then I am failing to believe that the grace of God is sufficient to justify me of my sins. And, not only am I undermining the grace of God by being bound by such a thing, but it also prevents me from treasuring Christ and increasing my joy in him. Legalism is a joy killer, and to miss the working of legalism in the heart is dangerous.
Also, to fail to trust in the promises of God to forgive me of my past failures is to suggest that I have something to offer God, or that I need to DO something in order to be forgiven. By thinking that I have something to offer God to begin with is arrogant and prideful. I come to the cross empty handed, with nothing to offer. Even as a believer, I am sustained by God’s free sovereign grace and mercy. I have nothing of value or worth to offer God, so if I am to find forgiveness, then I must surrender to the fact that I am totally saved by grace without ANY merit of my own. No action sways God in whether or not I will be forgiven. I am justified from sin by the working of free sovereign grace. Nothing more, nothing less. I bring nothing of value to God and what I receive in grace is given freely by God without my earning it.
Apparent outward workings of obedience are just legalism unless in my heart I am seeking to fall on the grace of God in order to be sustained. If my motivation is to perform an action to gain God’s favor, then I am a legalist. If my motivation is to serve out of joy, understanding all along that I am nothing without God’s grace and mercy, then I am free from legalism.”
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I have to say Mark, I like your last comment. You obviously have put a lot of thought into it in the last week or so. I think your definition helps a lot, and at this point, I will say that every single definition someone has given up to this point has done a pretty darn good Job. I feel that we have analyzed well what legalism is, and by proxy we have defined what it is not.
Now here is the rub, and the main thrust of why I asked it. You guys may feel after I ask this question that I am slipping you all a mickey. Austin alluded to my question very early on, as I knew that he would, him and I talk about this next question all the time.
Why is it that the word legalism always creeps into our conversations and sermons whenever someone says that we need to obey the word of God?
I have heard it a thousand times if I have heard it once, when one brother or sister tells another brother or sister that they need to desist from what is CLEARLY a sin, and a sin that is specifically articulated in the New Testament. Often, but not always, I see people hiding under the umbrella of “Grace” all the while they are shouting LEGALISM when they have been called to account as they should be?
Sin is to be defined by what the bible calls sin, and not what “Fundamentalists, or Judaizers,” think that it is. We all know what those extra-biblical things are and they have nothing to do with what I am talking about. (Although I do feel a bit sorry for fundamentalists, they often get a bad rap, maybe justifiably so however.)
Tom Huntford says:
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Almost nobody understands what “legalism” is.
It is a buzzword that is usually used by modern Christians to excuse themselves from holiness and obedience to God’s Word.
DEFINITION OF LEGALISM: ADDING OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW TO THE GOSPEL AS A CONDITION OF SALVATION.
A good example is Acts 15:1, “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
”
THAT is legalism. We find the same thing in Galatians 2: Behold, “I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”
Most of what people call “legalism” these days refers to people who are trying to obey what God has commanded in the New Testament. For example, if you just take 1 Cor 11 at face value, and say, “Well, as a woman, I should cover my head, especially when praying”, I can guarantee that you will be branded a “legalist”.
Let’s face it, the American Church is a disgrace to God. Half are living in adultery because they are divorces without due cause and remarried. Abortion is rampant among “Christians”, as is sexual immorality, pornography, and rebellion against authority.
The latter is the key.
Americans, including most who call themselves Christians, are allergic to authority. They don’t think that when Jesus speaking from the mouth of the Father, or the Apostles, speaking/writing the word of the Lord, say “Thou shalt”, or “Thou shalt not”, that they don’t have to obey. Wives think they don’t have to obey husbands. Children think they don’t have to obey parents. Brethren don’t think they have to obey the bishops/pastors/elders. Citizens don’t think they have to obey the government. Employees are the same with employers.
Its a plague: and the Church–so called–is saturated with it too.
We are just like the Pharisees. We come up with our fancy “theological” arguments that we use to excuse ourselves from obedience.
“Forbid not to speak with tongues”–yet how many do just that?
“Every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head”–how many obey it?
“Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”–how many just plain do this?
“Let no filthy communication proceed out of your mouth”–I have heard 4-letter words from the pulpit, and on the lips of “committed Christians”.
Forget “legalism”, except as it applies to salvation.
Learn Roman 14 about the conscience. That will teach you much as to what’s going on with Christians who have various opinions, especially when they have misconstrued the truth.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:56 pm
buzzword…
Words are powerful, and to Christians they have a severe degree of meaning. This is one of the reasons the Commandments tell us not to lie. When lying becomes commonplace, words lose their meaning. To make a word become deflated from its original intent is a result of drips of lies that compile into buckets of lies. I would agree. Legalism is a catch all buzz word which now means, “I don’t have to obey God because of Grace.” If you hear it in MOST contexts, that is how it is used. Tom is right, the fundamental core issue of legalism as presented in Acts and the epistles deals with the issue of salvation. But it also, as we have covered, deals with the issue of growth.
I strongly suspect that in most of the Christian circles, provided you are not in a cult, the issue of legalistic salvation through works of the flesh could not be farther from your present reality. I never hear of pastor’s or pulpiteers in Christianity today pounding out works based salvation. Which, by the way, was a fundamental problem in early Christianity more because of the original social framework. The reason it was such a problem then is because so many Pharisees were a part of the early church. This cultural overlapping is hardly the problem today that it was then…at least in western culture…no our problem is more a Greek/Roman problem. We are too sensual with our grace, to sensual and slippery about obedience.
Jeremy Nehf says:
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I would add a couple of other things to this. It seems to me that the larger problem in our understanding is failing to discern the difference between “personal conviction”, the right of a covenant community to form it’s own polity (communal conviction), and what is a biblical command or directive in the scriptures.
Personal convictions- Those decisions that the Holy Spirit directs you to do personally. While it may not be sinful to listen to secular music, or watch a PG-13 movie, because of your own conscience and the conviction of the Holy Spirit you may not have that freedom. Some people begin to live out those convictions and then they project those convictions onto others within the body, even though that is not the direction of the Lord for their lives.
Communal Polity or conviction- A particular church body may have come to conclusions about how to relate to one another as a community of believers. This may include certain “rules” concerning dress codes, church government, foods, alcohol, etc… These issues can all be made an issue based upon God’s leading to that particular body of believers. Some one from another fellowship may walk in and feel that it is “legalistic” to have such convictions but that may in fact just be the way God has directed that group of believers because of the context of their community, conscience, or directive from God. They are in fact worshiping God, and seeking to glorify Him, even if we take different paths to accomplish the same purpose. This has been the reason for so many of the divisions and denominations with the worldwide body of Christ.
Biblical directive- These are things that are clearly named as sins in the scriptures. Examples might include issues like forbidding homosexual marriage, adultery, drunkenness, fornication, lying, refusal to submit to authority structures, idolatry, sorcery, etc…etc… These are non-negotiable commands from the word.
Because we aren’t very good at sorting out these issues we tend to look down on the brother that doesn’t eat meat as though he is a legalist. Or the brother who doesn’t eat meat looks at us with the same disdain because he feels we are give too much liberty and are licentious. We confuse the boundaries.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
My question only is to directly address the question of Biblical Directive, as you state it Jeremy. These are the issues I have a concern about. As far as convictions go, I personally don’t want to tackle that beast at this time, but your point draws a line in the sand to clarify what I was asking, thank you. I have been all over the map with my wanderings in and out of “Christian Liberty.” And I will admit that my opinions on it are probably a bit muddled because of too little distance from the issue. I am really avoiding nailing down the specific things that concern me lest my concerns become associated and someone begin to speculate about specifics because they know me.
Jeremy Nehf says:
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Tom I don’t know you so I might be jumping the gun a little but I would like to address some of the comments you made regarding the scriptures you referenced. I might also direct you to the other portions of scripture that are in the context of the passages that you quoted above. Like 1 Cor 11:16 which says concerning head covering that “if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God”. On that issue Paul recognized that part of his logic was based on his own cultural experience. He did not think it was a divine directive. The issue that was divine is one of love for your context (community of believers or church) above personal freedom. The prostitutes that took vows to fornicate for the worship of their gods would shave their heads and go into the community to offer themselves for “worship”. It apparently became seductively fashionable, in the same way it has in our culture, and Paul is trying to bring cautious balance to this societal issue. If we follow the rest of your logic then men also should never have coverings on their heads when they pray. Which means that something other than faith in Christ is necessary to approach God in prayer. That is clearly not the point of the Corinthians passage. As for the tongues issue you brought up I didn’t see a scriptural reference but assume that you are speaking of the 1 Cor 14 chapter on the use of tongues in corporate worship. 1 Cor 14:27-28 Tells us to limit the use of tongues in corporate worship but 1 Cor 14:1-5 say that the use of tongues should be unlimited when used personally, (between you and the Lord). These are not theological ball dodges to contort the word to our society, this is good biblical exegesis. It is studying to show ourselves approved unto God as workmen that are not ashamed and can rightly divide the word of truth.
Legalism does refer mostly to the issues of salvation you are right in that but it isn’t limited to those issues. When a group or individual places requirements on others that aren’t just about salvation but also righteousness, this too is legalism. It presents homeschooling your children as though it was a part of being right with God. (or whatever other issue you want to stick in there, don’t drink, don’t smoke. don’t eat meat, worship on Saturday, wear a head covering to pray, etc…) Legalism places something other than faith in Christ to be the determining factor in just how righteous you are. Hope I haven’t misunderstood you! Grace to you!
Jeremy Nehf says:
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Jeremiah I don’t want to open that can of worms either. But I think that this is where there is so much confusion trying to discern legalism. People have a hard time separating it all out. There are things that are clear biblical directives and have to do with issues of sin and not sin. These are black and white issues and are rarely fought over because the bible is so clear on what is sin, and flesh. Most of the argument I encounter regarding legalism has to do with the first two issues I mentioned above. People in general have a hard time understanding how God could give liberty to others that they do not have. Or some have a hard time understanding why they have liberty in certain areas that others do not have. Those with liberty usually end up calling without legalists, and those who don’t have liberty in certain areas look on those who do as though they are less holy. When in fact, they both may be honoring God in different ways.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I have to think, read and pray a bit before my next response. Does anyone else have anything they want to discuss in the can, I guess we do kind of need to leave it open for a while, because you are right Jeremy, It is an area that generally lacks a lot of discernment. I have to say that I have the same take as Jeremy on head coverings. It is one of the only passages where an Epistle leaves the distinction in the hand of the believer and that specifically becomes an issue of “conviction.” However Tom, I agree with you on the issue of submission to authority, I do tend to kick a bit against the goads when it comes to women submitting to husbands in any Christian circle if Husbans loving their wives is not equally enforced. I think there is often a huge imbalance in this issue from many pulpits. Women tend to get roughed up a lot, and men tend to think its ok to treat their wives like trash.
Nate Frosland says:
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:11 pm
I am just now catching up on the discussion and will attempt to work with the original question.
Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:8,9 ” For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Paul obviously knew what it was to be a follower of the Law. The Law could not save and he found no place for legalism in Christ. To take the free gift of Christ and to soil it with the conditions of man is horrible!
Moving on to 2 Timothy 3:2-9 “For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their’s also was.” When we act out in Legalistic ways like those described above, we have a form of Godliness but deny His power. By placing a trip upon ourselves and others we make the cross of no effect. Yes, we preach Grace from the pulpit and are often accused of being too “soft” on sin but we are saved by Grace. Romans 2:4 “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?”
I could probably copy and paste the book of Romans but I will leave off for now.
Blessings!
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
December 4th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Historically, “Convictions,” Almost always downgrade into legalism. Acceptance within the beloved often is filtered through the congregations set of acceptable practices. I understand why we have them, I just wish that people would be a bit more honest about why they have them in a public forum, and that congregations would use more of a Epistolic (to make up a word) way of speaking. I Peter 2:1-3 Two words it this way…”Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and evil speakings, As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be that ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.”
The solution to sin in the exiles that Peter is addressing boiled down to a maintenance of the pure nourishing gospel. The “Convictional” issues addressed in the Epistles actually seem to pale in comparison to the issues of the heart and direct sin that they confront. The issue of conviction is one that “Mature” and “Spiritual” believers must use a great deal of discernment when handling.
I am far more concerned with overlaying actual sin with grace though. I have seen it done on numerous occasions, and it honestly bothers me enormously when I see the Grace of God turned into license. I doubt in any case I have heard it that the individual who did it would think that they had done such a thing, but in effect it was the outcome of their reasoning.
As far as most of those issues that people make big deals about…smoking, drinking alcohol, (insert gray area here), I think they often receive sneers from people because of a legalistic sense of superiority. Well, your plate may be clean on the outside, but have you been gorging yourself on the milk of the word in such a way that it is making white the blackness of pride in your heart?
I am having a hard time wording this post, but basically I think sometimes those rules can overlay and obfuscate the simplicity of growing in grace. I do not grow because of my environment, or because of what is available in it. As a believer I can only grow by grace and by grace alone. Any rules that make me think I have arrived are almost inexplicably linked to legalism.
Jesus was the narrow gate, and the narrow path for a reason. For it is only through his power, his finished work, his pure heart. This is why then that, “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” The spiritual sacrifices must be there, but they are to be a display of Christs glory, not Moses. For Moses only ever stood in the glory of God.
To stray into plate cleaning we have left the narrow path…
That is what my opinion at least currently is, as it deals with the issues of liberty.
Well, one last thing, be careful with liberty, our goal is closeness to Christ, not distance from him. 1 Peter 2:16, “As free and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.”
I think there is a worship song they used to sing at Mars Hill about how Christ has made us free to be slaves…
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
December 4th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Someone needs to start giving Jeremy a run for his money…hint hint. I will let the thread go for about another week and then we will wrap it up as far as the “competition,” goes.
Jeremy Nehf says:
December 4th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Did I mention how much I really love books?
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
December 4th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I’m heading to P-town in a few minutes, gonna see if Ang will let me talk her into a “quick” trip to Powells after Ikea…it will take some leg twisting though I am sure.
Jeremy Nehf says:
December 4th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Hot tip #347
Wives that love Jesus encourage book reading!
This one’s on the house!
markc says:
December 5th, 2009 at 8:10 am
Jeremiah – Sorry I’m late to the party. I just wanted to let you know that I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion and I look forward to joining your discussion board when you get it up and running.
I read on another blog a statement that I feel sums up “legalism” as is currently (re)defined by the liberal church. The statement (paraphrased, and I’m sorry that I don’t remember the author) is that “people get very upset when you chase their golden calves out of the barn”. This seems to be a good description; I have had more than a few run-ins with people who call me a “legalist” because I dare to point out that they are clinging to their lives in the world, instead of repenting of cherished sins and clinging to the Lord.
If I may reply to something that Tom Huntford said; “Americans, including most who call themselves Christians, are allergic to authority.” Well said, sir, you hit the nail on right on the head! I had a discussion recently with a pastor that ended with him calling me “legalistic” because he insisted that Romans 13:4 gives Christians license to disobey the authorities that God appoints (if we feel that they are “immoral”), and I refused to compromise my position that Romans 13:4 DOES NOT give us that “right”. This pastor would rather be in rebellion against authority, and by definition, God Himself, than submit himself to the word of God.
It’s been my experience that whenever a Christian uses the term “legalistic” as a perjorative toward you, it means that they no longer have any excuses to defend their sinful behavior, and they just want you to shut up and go away, because you are making their head (and conscience) hurt.
Mark Melton says:
December 5th, 2009 at 10:55 am
This bothers me a little: “…a discussion recently with a pastor that ended with him calling me “legalistic” because he insisted that Romans 13:4 gives Christians license to disobey the authorities that God appoints (if we feel that they are “immoral”), and I refused to compromise my position that Romans 13:4 DOES NOT give us that “right”. This pastor would rather be in rebellion against authority, and by definition, God Himself, than submit himself to the word of God.”
I wonder…would God rather us obey authority if they are going directly against God. How far do we take this? The husband is the head of the house and how many pastors tell a wife in an abusive situation (and abuse is NOT Just physical) that they must honor him and stick it through because he’s the authority and divorce will put you in danger of hell fire. And so a woman lives in a literal hell because she’s afraid of going to an eternal hell if she tries to escape.
I wonder if this pastor was indeed in rebellion against authority (and in your opinion God) or simply saw that sometimes there is a point where you must stand up to authority when evil is occurring. I don’t know. I wasn’t there.
I don’t agree that “…WHENEVER a Christian uses the term
“legalistic” as a perjorative toward you, it means that they no longer have any excuses to defend their sinful behavior, and they just want you to shut up and go away, because you are making their head (and conscience) hurt.”
That implies it’s ALWAYS the case. And it’s not.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
December 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I actually would not mind, when we get our discussion forum running, to have a discussion about submission to governments. In some ways this topic is going to become one of the penultimate issues facing our western generation if things keep going the way they are. But that whole issue is a discussion as big as the cascade mountain range, and also one that I have spent a lot of time pondering and reconciling with scripture. So give us a while and we will allow everyone to hammer that out. For now though I do not want to touch that with a ten foot pole.
Thank you though MarkC for your contribution. I think that statement about chasing the golden calves out of the barn is hilarious. It is not always a “whenever” issue like Mark Melton rebutted, but I do think it is true often enough to warrant serious concern, however you did say that it was common in your experience. Which is one of the reasons I started this thread. I think we use the term in an non biblical fashion all the time. So I sympathize with the sentiment.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
December 5th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I would however need Austin’s approval before we tackled that issue.
markc says:
December 6th, 2009 at 1:11 am
Mark Melton – Sorry, I wasn’t very clear. There are two instances where Christians must disobey the governing authorities:
1) when government compels Christians to sin against God;
2) when government prohibits Christians from proclaiming the gospel.
Mr. Melton, since God established all authority (including political authority), when we rebel against those who God placed into authority, we rebel against God. That’s not my opinion, that’s Romans 13:1-2. And God makes no guarantees of the “goodness” or “morality” of those He raises as leaders! If you don’t believe that, read the book of Judges. Thanks for the straw-man argument about the abusive spouse, always a pleasure to see non-related examples thrown out as “proof” that I’m wrong!
Jeremiah, there’s one other point I need to clarify… Whenever a LIBERAL Christian uses the term “legalistic” as a perjorative toward you, it means that they no longer have any excuses to defend their sinful behavior, and they just want you to shut up and go away, because you are making their head (and conscience) hurt. And in my experience that is always the case when dealing with liberals.
Sorry, Jeremiah, I know this is way off topic, but I feel the following distinctions need to be made:
A political liberal believes the American constitution is a living document that is open to re-interpretation; a political conservative does not.
A liberal Christian believes the Bible is open to re-interpretation; a conservative Christian does not.
I’ll drop this now; hopefully you will have your message board up and running soon, and we can continue this over there!
Mark Melton says:
December 6th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
LOL!
Withstanding temptation to defend myself on the starwman statement.
So I humbly concede.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Shazzzam…I gotta say, I even made the rule and I did not even notice it…what Kind of moderator am I? Sorry Mark…Straw Men are the siren songs of discussion. Thank you for the Clarification MarkC I look forward to the discussion…Thanks again for everyone’s contributions so far. It has been a good conversation, I will try to rev the engine again a bit tomorrow night. Sundays are incredibly busy days for me and by the time the evening rolls around I feel rather useless in the noodle.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
December 7th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Sorry, the meeting I had to go to tonight went way longer than I anticipated, my brain is like tapioca at the moment. May the Lord bless all of your days tomorrow. I will have to ask me last few questions then. Lord Bless.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
December 8th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Finally, here is my last question as it pertains to completion of the project, but by no means completion of the topic if anyone wants to resume it.
If you had to pick one word to describe how Abraham’s faith physically manifested itself, what would it be? In other words, what was the result of his faith?
Jeremy Nehf says:
December 9th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I think I understand our question but am not 100%. You might be looking for another angle but as far as Abe’s reward for faith. The word I would choose is “fellowship”.
Abraham was called by God, his friend. (Is 41:8) The reward was the friendship he developed with God by learning to trust His heart. Without faith it is “IMPOSSIBLE” to please Him.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
December 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I no longer care what angle I had in my mind…as simple as the response was Jeremy…Your answer may take me days to recover from…
Jeremy Nehf says:
December 9th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I’m still chewing on it myself. Thanks for the invite, this has been a fruitful discussion.
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
December 9th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Years and years ago, the statement that Abraham was the Friend of God meant absolutely nothing to me in any real sense. I have thought long and hard about Abraham over the last year, and now, after all my thinking and meditation, this was just the thing I needed to add to my understanding. I asked a question with the intent to teach, only to find that I still had to learn. Jeremy, your book is coming in the mail as we speak, it probably won’t be here before the weekend though.
Jeremy Nehf says:
December 9th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
WoooooHooooo!
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
December 16th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Your book got here last night bro.
Tak says:
December 21st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Hi, I have no clue what the discussion is about. But I just wanted to say hi.
Hi!
Jeremiah Dusenberry says:
December 21st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
TAK!!!