The term legalism is used by many authors to describe any belief system that implies that a Christian receives salvation and right standing with God by carefully following a list of expected behaviors which has been constructed by the creators of the system.
Well golly, if we go by the above definition, then TWI wasn't / isn't engaging in legalism since they always taught that a person receives salvation by faith in Christ as opposed to carefully following a list of expected behaviors.
But if acceptance of those laws or principles is not being viewed as a method to "earn" or "preserve" salvation, this is not really related to the specific concept of legalism. It is entirely possible for a religious group to reject even any or all of the Ten Commandments, but to substitute for them a list of forbidden activities such as card-playing or dancing, and still be proponents of a legalistic system.
1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice> 2 : a legal term or rule
According to the above definition, legalism could be stopping at every red traffic light.
Legalism could comprise a wide variety of things; from the strict conformity to traffic signals or the ten commandments, or anything in between.
If that's the definition, yeah, twi engaged in legalism. And so does much of the entire universe.
yeah, so? I think the topic was not really about whether twi is legalistic, but whether the legalistic policies of twi are/were good for the population at large, or bad. traffic lights control traffic and provide a way to channels vehicles and pedestrians safely, and the associated legalisms define rules of use. once a legalistic code of morals dictates what reading materials are appropriate, how you will spend your free time, and who you should associate with, then adherence to the legalisms becomes oppressive.
Well golly, if we go by the above definition, then TWI wasn't / isn't engaging in legalism since they always taught that a person receives salvation by faith in Christ as opposed to carefully following a list of expected behaviors.
read it again, OM. that wasn't a definition. it was an example of usage by christian writers.
... once a legalistic code of morals dictates what reading materials are appropriate, how you will spend your free time, and who you should associate with, then adherence to the legalisms becomes oppressive. ...
There are scripture verses for the above, does the bible promote oppression? I believe it all depends on the mindset of the person making the decision. Your idea of oppression may not be someone else's. A person in twi or any other religion probably does not see that as oppression. A monk probably doesn't see it as oppression.
If you do, you are entitled to your opinion.
read it again, OM. that wasn't a definition. it was an example of usage by christian writers.
OK then, according to Christian' writers idea about legalism, TWI does not engage in legalism since twi always taught that a person receives salvation by faith in Christ alone, as opposed to carefully following a list of expected behaviors.
By the way thanks for mentioning this, wasn't it great to be part of a non-legalist religious group?
The attitude prevalent when I was in TWI was that if someone didn't sit through PFAL and speak in tongues at the end of the class – then they weren't worth helping and it was considered debatable if they were even saved. That's what TWI really "taught" by the attitudes they encouraged.
There are scripture verses for the above, does the bible promote oppression? I believe it all depends on the mindset of the person making the decision. Your idea of oppression may not be someone else's. A person in twi or any other religion probably does not see that as oppression. A monk probably doesn't see it as oppression.
If you do, you are entitled to your opinion.
all correct. in my opinion, being told not to work via the internet, visit non-twi sites, not to question leadership, to read the bible in the morning, to submit a schedule, to punish my children in certain ways and for certain things, to follow my husband blindly even when he was being stupid and destructive, to have sex with him no matter how mean he was to me, to have a job or not have a job, to not associate with people who left twi, to stop associating with people who wouldn't take the class, to me make up a the tenets of a legalistic system. whether it was good or bad for me is my opinion. I say it was bad, very bad.
OK then, according to Christian' writers idea about legalism, TWI does not engage in legalism since twi always taught that a person receives salvation by faith in Christ, as opposed to carefully following a list of expected behaviors.
By the way thanks for mentioning this, wasn't it great to be part of a non-legalist religious group?
read it again, OM:
"The term legalism is used by many authors to describe any belief system that implies that a Christian receives salvation and right standing with God by carefully following a list of expected behaviors which has been constructed by the creators of the system."
Yes, which is all the more reason why I rejoice having been taught an anti-legalistic doctrine in twi. The religion of my youth, a.k.a. the Roman Catholic Church, teach that one must obey all of the Roman Catholic Sacraments to have a chance at salvation. They deny salvation by grace alone. In fact, according to the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the declarations of which are still in force, the Roman Catholic Church formally condemned the biblical doctrine of faith alone and grace alone. Consider the following declarations of Trent:
"if anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).
"If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).
Golly, I continue to thank God for groups like TWI who continue to propound Justification and Salvation by Grace alone!
(A portion of the preceding statement was excerpted from Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright 2001.) :o :D
Legalism begins when the Pharisees are enthroned. Legalism is accepted when the Pharisees are revered. Legalism increases when the Pharisees' jurisdiction is threatened by freedom. Legalism is kaka when the Pharisees-colored glasses are removed.
First major institutionalized legalism came when the bus driver tried to pull his lie POOP and his coop. They preached grace while they whipped the masses in shape.
Then the Household teachings by LCM, before that for the common Jane and Joe it was a cakewalk. Sons of God suddenly wasn’t good enough, had to be of the household of faith, corps quality believers on the field without the training was the standard for the grads………..
I submit that dictionary definitions of "legalism" are not entirely relevant to this discussion. "Legalism" was one of those words that became TWI jargon and was used within TWI in a way that did not necessarily line up with a NBW's understanding of the term.
TWI taught grace through Jesus Christ (whether they practiced it is open to debate). They not only taught salvation by grace, but living a lifestyle of grace, contasting grace with "living under the Law", i.e. "legalism".
There was much more to the whole Law vs. Grace model than where you ended up in the afterlife, it was how you were expected to live that defined whether something was of the Law, and hence legalistic.
One of the legalistic measures in the Old Testament was circumcision. If you were a convert you had a choice about it, but that didn't make it any less legalistic. One could always choose to disobey any of the hundreds of parts of The Law. During some periods the result was death, in others it was expulsion from the community, in other times where the Gentiles ruled, there might not be serious consequenses at all. It was always a choice, it was always legalistic.
I submit that whether there was the ability to choose or not is irrelevant to the discussion. One could choose at any time to disobey the directives of leadership in TWI, if the choice was "obey or leave", then we have legalism. If there was no such ultimatum, then we probably don't have legalism. No one that I know of was physically forced to remain in TWI, I don't really buy the brainwashing argument either, but the availability of a "choice" to walk away, when walking away would mean giving up something that was as valuable as membership in TWI was perceived to be is not really a choice.
I would further submit that not every requirement is necessarily legalistic: prohibiting members from stealing from each other, beating each other up, or vandalizing each other's homes is protecting the group; requiring people to wear hats, wash their cars and refrain from recreational marijuana use may be good advice, but is a Law.
There may be some gray area around the edges, but I say that legalism is not all in the head, it is a mindset of attempted control over peoples' lives by making the possession of something that one really wants, i.e. fellowship with a ministry that teaches The Word like it hasn't been taught since the First Century, dependent on arbitrary rules and regulations.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS I BELIEVE WE ALL STILL CARE ABOUT EACHOTHER BECAUSE WE ARE HERE ON THIS PAGE,WE ARE STILL A FAMILY OF THE BODY OF CHRIST WE NEVER LOST THAT,WHAT WE LOST WAS A BUISNESS TRYING TO ENSLAVE US TO DO '"their'"WORK FOR THEIR PROFIT AND I AM SO SORRY SO MANY PEOPLE WERE HURT.
I guess that would be anytime from the 60s and on, and depending on who experienced the legalism. The word "doulos" comes to mind when remembering a slave-master relationship. It's been so long. I started to experience legalism from the start and did not know it, in 1980-1982, when they charged $100.00 for the PFAL class. If I missed fellowship someone would track me down and ask how I was doing, but control was disguised as concern. Also in 1982 in the Intermediate class, some woman said I was possessed for having trouble interpreting tongues. In 1986, we were not allowed to leave the campus at Emporia during the Advanced Class. Things such as "Motion to Devotion" drove me nuts and it was required. Since I felt like an idiot doing it, I refused. I was not the only one. Many did not and we were sort of threatened with being kicked out of the class. When we did not do it again, I suppose they gave up and did not try to force us and we all finished the class.
Later, people who left in 1986 were considered copouts. From 1986 to 1992 when I left, Corps, Advanced Class and general believers were pretty much spying on each other and turning each other in for offenses where an offense shouldn't even exist, such as buying coffee for yourself and not letting another person make it for you so they could get a reward from God. Things such as this. It was especially shocking when you never knew someone was supposed to give you free coffee, most of it out of the Corps sponsorship I gave to them. Which means I paid for it anyway.
Kicked out of a cemetary or funeral, there is more.
And after finally leaving, the phone calls and hate mail received from believers telling me God Bless at the beginning of the message and I was heading to Hell at the end.
For me the key ingredient for me to want to use the term "legalism" is an element of abuse in the events. I suppose it can be when the issue is simply control too.
It's been written for 2000 years or so now as a term for people who used the O.T law to control people but without the heart or love that is in Christ. They didn't know what they were doing in other words.
Sorry if you don't believe in the same things that I do everyone, but I don't know how to talk about this without some kind of biblical reference. I hope that you can look past the reference and consider the principles behind what I'm saying.
...a term for people who used the O.T law to control people but without the heart or love that is in Christ...
Yeah, I think that's a pretty good way of putting it: someone who uses the rules to control someone else, not out a goodness of heart but out of fear or selfishness.
So, that means it isn't a question of what the rule is, but how it is applied and handled. And that, my friends, describes twi exactly! That's why there is no "one" experience... yeah, the same rules were pretty much in place nationwide, but each was applied differently, depending on who your leadership was, depending on who YOU were, depending on who else was paying attention at the time...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
4
4
6
Popular Days
Jan 14
22
Jan 17
20
Jan 16
15
Jan 15
8
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 12 posts
T-Bone 4 posts
Eyesopen 4 posts
JeffSjo 6 posts
Popular Days
Jan 14 2008
22 posts
Jan 17 2008
20 posts
Jan 16 2008
15 posts
Jan 15 2008
8 posts
oldiesman
Well golly, if we go by the above definition, then TWI wasn't / isn't engaging in legalism since they always taught that a person receives salvation by faith in Christ as opposed to carefully following a list of expected behaviors.
But if acceptance of those laws or principles is not being viewed as a method to "earn" or "preserve" salvation, this is not really related to the specific concept of legalism. It is entirely possible for a religious group to reject even any or all of the Ten Commandments, but to substitute for them a list of forbidden activities such as card-playing or dancing, and still be proponents of a legalistic system.
Thanks Potato
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
yeah, so? I think the topic was not really about whether twi is legalistic, but whether the legalistic policies of twi are/were good for the population at large, or bad. traffic lights control traffic and provide a way to channels vehicles and pedestrians safely, and the associated legalisms define rules of use. once a legalistic code of morals dictates what reading materials are appropriate, how you will spend your free time, and who you should associate with, then adherence to the legalisms becomes oppressive.
read it again, OM. that wasn't a definition. it was an example of usage by christian writers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
There are scripture verses for the above, does the bible promote oppression? I believe it all depends on the mindset of the person making the decision. Your idea of oppression may not be someone else's. A person in twi or any other religion probably does not see that as oppression. A monk probably doesn't see it as oppression.
If you do, you are entitled to your opinion.
OK then, according to Christian' writers idea about legalism, TWI does not engage in legalism since twi always taught that a person receives salvation by faith in Christ alone, as opposed to carefully following a list of expected behaviors.
By the way thanks for mentioning this, wasn't it great to be part of a non-legalist religious group?
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The attitude prevalent when I was in TWI was that if someone didn't sit through PFAL and speak in tongues at the end of the class – then they weren't worth helping and it was considered debatable if they were even saved. That's what TWI really "taught" by the attitudes they encouraged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
om
i don't think christ ever expected anyone to be his slave
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
all correct. in my opinion, being told not to work via the internet, visit non-twi sites, not to question leadership, to read the bible in the morning, to submit a schedule, to punish my children in certain ways and for certain things, to follow my husband blindly even when he was being stupid and destructive, to have sex with him no matter how mean he was to me, to have a job or not have a job, to not associate with people who left twi, to stop associating with people who wouldn't take the class, to me make up a the tenets of a legalistic system. whether it was good or bad for me is my opinion. I say it was bad, very bad.
read it again, OM:
"The term legalism is used by many authors to describe any belief system that implies that a Christian receives salvation and right standing with God by carefully following a list of expected behaviors which has been constructed by the creators of the system."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yes, which is all the more reason why I rejoice having been taught an anti-legalistic doctrine in twi. The religion of my youth, a.k.a. the Roman Catholic Church, teach that one must obey all of the Roman Catholic Sacraments to have a chance at salvation. They deny salvation by grace alone. In fact, according to the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the declarations of which are still in force, the Roman Catholic Church formally condemned the biblical doctrine of faith alone and grace alone. Consider the following declarations of Trent:
Golly, I continue to thank God for groups like TWI who continue to propound Justification and Salvation by Grace alone!
(A portion of the preceding statement was excerpted from Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright 2001.) :o :D
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The Moon is made of green cheese!!
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Legalism begins when the Pharisees are enthroned. Legalism is accepted when the Pharisees are revered. Legalism increases when the Pharisees' jurisdiction is threatened by freedom. Legalism is kaka when the Pharisees-colored glasses are removed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
First major institutionalized legalism came when the bus driver tried to pull his lie POOP and his coop. They preached grace while they whipped the masses in shape.
Then the Household teachings by LCM, before that for the common Jane and Joe it was a cakewalk. Sons of God suddenly wasn’t good enough, had to be of the household of faith, corps quality believers on the field without the training was the standard for the grads………..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
yes
with you on this one cool :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I submit that dictionary definitions of "legalism" are not entirely relevant to this discussion. "Legalism" was one of those words that became TWI jargon and was used within TWI in a way that did not necessarily line up with a NBW's understanding of the term.
TWI taught grace through Jesus Christ (whether they practiced it is open to debate). They not only taught salvation by grace, but living a lifestyle of grace, contasting grace with "living under the Law", i.e. "legalism".
There was much more to the whole Law vs. Grace model than where you ended up in the afterlife, it was how you were expected to live that defined whether something was of the Law, and hence legalistic.
One of the legalistic measures in the Old Testament was circumcision. If you were a convert you had a choice about it, but that didn't make it any less legalistic. One could always choose to disobey any of the hundreds of parts of The Law. During some periods the result was death, in others it was expulsion from the community, in other times where the Gentiles ruled, there might not be serious consequenses at all. It was always a choice, it was always legalistic.
I submit that whether there was the ability to choose or not is irrelevant to the discussion. One could choose at any time to disobey the directives of leadership in TWI, if the choice was "obey or leave", then we have legalism. If there was no such ultimatum, then we probably don't have legalism. No one that I know of was physically forced to remain in TWI, I don't really buy the brainwashing argument either, but the availability of a "choice" to walk away, when walking away would mean giving up something that was as valuable as membership in TWI was perceived to be is not really a choice.
I would further submit that not every requirement is necessarily legalistic: prohibiting members from stealing from each other, beating each other up, or vandalizing each other's homes is protecting the group; requiring people to wear hats, wash their cars and refrain from recreational marijuana use may be good advice, but is a Law.
There may be some gray area around the edges, but I say that legalism is not all in the head, it is a mindset of attempted control over peoples' lives by making the possession of something that one really wants, i.e. fellowship with a ministry that teaches The Word like it hasn't been taught since the First Century, dependent on arbitrary rules and regulations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS I BELIEVE WE ALL STILL CARE ABOUT EACHOTHER BECAUSE WE ARE HERE ON THIS PAGE,WE ARE STILL A FAMILY OF THE BODY OF CHRIST WE NEVER LOST THAT,WHAT WE LOST WAS A BUISNESS TRYING TO ENSLAVE US TO DO '"their'"WORK FOR THEIR PROFIT AND I AM SO SORRY SO MANY PEOPLE WERE HURT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
hi Oklahoma City Wow 78
I must caution you that all caps means yelling on the internet, but your message was worthy of yelling even if you didn't intend it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Since we are talking legal terms now I just wanted to add one alleged
Oh I thought it said legalsystem..... Never mind
Carry On..........
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
I guess that would be anytime from the 60s and on, and depending on who experienced the legalism. The word "doulos" comes to mind when remembering a slave-master relationship. It's been so long. I started to experience legalism from the start and did not know it, in 1980-1982, when they charged $100.00 for the PFAL class. If I missed fellowship someone would track me down and ask how I was doing, but control was disguised as concern. Also in 1982 in the Intermediate class, some woman said I was possessed for having trouble interpreting tongues. In 1986, we were not allowed to leave the campus at Emporia during the Advanced Class. Things such as "Motion to Devotion" drove me nuts and it was required. Since I felt like an idiot doing it, I refused. I was not the only one. Many did not and we were sort of threatened with being kicked out of the class. When we did not do it again, I suppose they gave up and did not try to force us and we all finished the class.
Later, people who left in 1986 were considered copouts. From 1986 to 1992 when I left, Corps, Advanced Class and general believers were pretty much spying on each other and turning each other in for offenses where an offense shouldn't even exist, such as buying coffee for yourself and not letting another person make it for you so they could get a reward from God. Things such as this. It was especially shocking when you never knew someone was supposed to give you free coffee, most of it out of the Corps sponsorship I gave to them. Which means I paid for it anyway.
Kicked out of a cemetary or funeral, there is more.
And after finally leaving, the phone calls and hate mail received from believers telling me God Bless at the beginning of the message and I was heading to Hell at the end.
I guess, stuff like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
For me the key ingredient for me to want to use the term "legalism" is an element of abuse in the events. I suppose it can be when the issue is simply control too.
It's been written for 2000 years or so now as a term for people who used the O.T law to control people but without the heart or love that is in Christ. They didn't know what they were doing in other words.
Sorry if you don't believe in the same things that I do everyone, but I don't know how to talk about this without some kind of biblical reference. I hope that you can look past the reference and consider the principles behind what I'm saying.
My opinion on the slave issue:
Slave to Jesus Christ---------------GOOD
Slave to self serving leadership---BAD
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
i repeat...i don't thinks JC wants or needs slaves,just folk like us who love him.
i love my wife and know she loves but be damned if we should be slaves to one another.
you do things out of love NOT slavery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
Yeah, I think that's a pretty good way of putting it: someone who uses the rules to control someone else, not out a goodness of heart but out of fear or selfishness.
So, that means it isn't a question of what the rule is, but how it is applied and handled. And that, my friends, describes twi exactly! That's why there is no "one" experience... yeah, the same rules were pretty much in place nationwide, but each was applied differently, depending on who your leadership was, depending on who YOU were, depending on who else was paying attention at the time...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Good point Coolchef.
Without love I don't think we have anything that's ever good in any of us.
With love a lot of things become good.
Thanks for the good point TheHighWay.
I saw good in my days in TWI. I've seen some very bad things in the small splinter group that came after TWI for me.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.