Jeff,

> > JD:  Legalism, to me, is the result of someone adding anything to
> > "by grace, through faith, on account of Christ."  Examples are 
> fine
> > when it comes to explaining what we mean.  When we start to
> > say that you have to follow this example in this way in order to 
> be saved or in order to keep your salvation, that is legalism.
> > 
> >         I think David is a fine example but not a normative one.  
> It would be better to use Christ as an example.
> 
> That is what I think too, Jim. However those who preach that way 
> will say that they are only being helpful and practical.

JD:  Then, they need to consider that the law was neither given for
salvation/justification nor for sanctification.  "For if there had been a
law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have
been by the law." (Galatians 3: 21).

        Now, the law "was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might
be justified by faith, but after faith has come, we are no longer under
a tutor." (Galatians 3: 24-25).  When preachers continue to dwell
on, "Thou shalt follow this example!" people easily get the idea that
they have not yet been brought to Christ but are somewhere along
the line in the process of being brought to Him.  They are still under
a tutor.  And the preacher wants them to listen to that tutor, even
though that means they are still under law.  By the law is the
knowledge of sin (Romans 3: 20).  What the congregation is hearing,
although this may not be what the pastor thinks he is saying, is,
"You are not yet saved.  Here are all the sins in which you are
still living.  The law still condemns you.  Now, follow this example,
and you will be saved, unless I can come up with another example
for you to follow."

        The law does a good job of telling people what they should
and should not do.  The problem is it has no power or authority
to enable them to do nor not do it.

Jim