Legalism

[Hammster]

I didn't start this in GT because I didn't want to.

 

[Soyeong]

But if you are gentile then the OT was not written for us to follow cos we were never under the old covenant. We actually didnt have any law. Moses wasnt our leader.

I see a distinction between God's law and a covenant agreement to live according to God's law. We should always obey God's law even if we aren't in a covenant to obey it, but doubly so if we are. So I haven't been suggesting that we go back to the Old Covenant, but I do think that we should like according to God's holy, righteous, and good standard and that as obedient children of God, it is expected of us.

1 John 3:4-10 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

If we want to know what it means to practice righteousness, then we should look up God's instructions for that in the law.

That was written for the israelites as a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ.

When someone gets to the point where they no longer need a schoolmaster, do you suppose that it is because they have learned everything God had to teach, that it is second nature to them, and that they are now responsible to do what they had been taught without the threat of punishment? Or do you suppose that God would be pleased with them if they were to disregard everything that they had been taught?

Otherwise EVERYONE would just have to be circumcised again and be kosher.

The law never commanded that everyone should become circumcised, so by ruling against the Jews who were wanting to make that a requirement, the Jerusalem Council was upholding the law. If the law had commanded everyone to become circumcised, then the Jerusalem Council had no authority to countermand God. I do think God wants his people to have a holy conduct (1 Peter 1:13-16), which includes obeying kosher laws, which verse 16 is quoting from.

I notice you would only pick and choose the ones easiest for you, and many of the tradtions we actually cant even do...like as said before circumcision, eating kosher only, and sacrificing animals.

How is it that you have so much knowledge about what I am doing? The law doesn't require everyone to become circumcised, it does require his people to eat kosher, and it requires animal sacrifices when there is a Temple.

 

[Soyeong]

I didn't start this in GT because I didn't want to.

Would you prefer if I didn't post in your thread?

 

[twin1954]

1 John 3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

I have no problem with those Scriptures. What I do is see the righteousness that they are speaking of in a different light. The Scriptures, which are God breathed, instruct us to not look at our own righteousness but to Christ's. He is all my righteousness, all my holiness and all that a believer needs. We are instructed by the Scriptures to rest in Him and be free from the burden of having to work out a righteousness of any sort.

That is not to say that we do not live in such a way as to seek to honor Him. All believers do. We just do it for another reason. We live by faith daily walking in the knowledge that Christ is all and enough. Resting in Him we are free to serve His Gospel and His people without trying to get anything from it. Moreover we do it because it is natural for sheep to act like sheep and to follow the Shepherd.

There are two closely related concepts: being declared righteous and practicing righteousness or training in righteousness. Being declared righteous is about our justification or our right standing before God while practicing righteousness is about sanctification or the conduct that those who are declared righteous are called to have as we live out our lives in obedience to God and are transformed to be more like Christ in his conduct.

Justification and sanctification are not separate things. They are both acts of God in us and for us. If you honestly think that you are becoming more righteous then you do not know the deceitfulness of your heart nor what true righteousness is. The old man, called the flesh, never can be reformed. He never gets better nor does he act differently. He is sin. The old man doesn't need to be taken to the hospital of the law to be cured he must be taken to the cross to be crucified.

Sanctification is God creating a new man that cannot sin. 1John 3:9. We are born of God as new creations not a recreation. That new man has the righteousness of God imparted, for lack of a better word, in him and cannot sin. We live daily in a constant warfare against ourselves, the flesh against the spirit. Rom. 7:6-25, Gal. 5:16-24 Sin no longer has dominion, Rom. 6:14.

Sanctification isn't getting better as we live this life of faith it is being set apart as God's, which is what the word means. It has three basic connotations: set apart by God as holy unto Him, declared holy by God in such a way as the essence stays the same, and to actually be made holy by God. Believers are set apart by God as His holy people in electing love, They are declared holy by God in the same way that the vessels of the Sanctuary were declared holy but their essence never changed, and we are made holy by God in the new birth.

The reason why instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct can't cause us to become holy, righteous, and good is because it was weaken by our flesh (Romans 8:3), or in other words, because our sin nature prevented us from obeying them. God's solution was to inhibit our sin nature so that we could be free to have such a conduct. He accomplished this by sending His Son to pay our penalty for our transgression of the law and to set us free from our sin nature's mastery over us, and to send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to Him. The righteous requirement of the law is obedience, so the righteousness of Christ causes us to be obedient.

No the righteous requirement of the law is perfect obedience. It must be perfect to be accepted. Lev. 22:21, Deut. 18:13. Anything less than perfection is not righteousness nor holiness. There are no degrees to righteousness or holiness. You are either righteous or you are not. You are either holy or you are not. The slightest imperfection stains it and destroys it.

The instructions, as I pointed out earlier, are to show us that we must rest totally in Christ. Yes we are to live as honestly and uprightly as we can but that is not righteousness or holiness. We are instructed to serve Him and do all things as though it were for Christ's sake. But we are never told in the New Testament to use the law as a rule of life or as instruction in righteousness. We are never told to use the law to make us feel good about our lives or put on a show of religion.

I won't deny Romans 10:4, but I will deny that that is how the verse is intended to be understood. While the Greek word "telos" can be translated as "end", a more appropriate translation is "goal". For instance, when you pick up a phone to dial a number, you don't have just any end in mind, but rather you have a specific goal in mind. In Greek literature, saying "the telos of something" is almost always talking about its aim or purpose, not about it coming to an end. The word "end" also has within its range to mean "intention or purpose". Starting in Romans 9:30, Paul uses a number terms relating to foot races, so "goal" fits with the context, whereas making a statement about the law coming to an end doesn't fit at all.

Actually the primary meaning of the word is termination. It does have other connotations though such as object, purpose and fulfillment. I am convinced, by the rest of the writing of Paul, that he intends it to be understood in all of them. Christ is the termination of the law, He is the object of the law, He is the purpose of the law and He is the fulfillment of the law.

Furthermore, that would directly contradict Jesus' words in Matthew 5:17-19 and Paul's words in Romans 3:31. Why would God ever want to free us from holy, righteous, and good instructions and why would we ever want to be free from them?

No it doesn't. First verse 20 explains what He means. in Matt. 5:17-19. He is in no way teaching that we can keep the law but that we are unable to. As to the Rom. 3:31 passage I would remind you of the need to get the context. Paul had just been explaining how we are justified by Christ in perfect righteousness and justice and in verse 31 he simply is telling us that we do not make void the law by faith in Christ but we establish the law by faith in Christ because it is God who is righteous and declares His righteousness in the work of salvation and the death of Christ as our Substitute.

Jesus said that Moses wrote about him (John 5:46) and at other times he interpreted all of Scripture concerning himself (Luke 24:27), so the reality is that all of Scripture is about, points toward, or is directed at the Messiah the the Messiah is the aim or purpose of Scripture. If you read the OT and you don't see the Messiah, then you've missed the point. The law points toward Christ because it is Christ who can pay for our transgression of it and can enable us to keep it.

You will get no argument from me on that. I may just understand how He enables us to keep it differently than you do. I keep the law in the inward man by the new creation that I am being born of God and His seed remains in me. I do not keep the law in outward appearance as though I am some holy man.

Not all of the laws applied to everyone even when the law was given, so it takes prayer and discernment to determine which laws apply to me, but I think laws like God's Feasts, the God's Sabbath, and dietary laws are pretty clear. Does it even make sense to you that Jesus would take the title "Lord of the Sabbath" if he did away with it?

First the Lord didn't do away with the Sabbath He fulfilled the Sabbath in its type and purpose. Moreover even the Jews never truly kept the Sabbath and neither do you.

As to not all the laws applying to everybody I understand that the Levites had laws that applied to them alone. But you don't get to pick and choose which laws you are going to obey. The Scriptures never divide the law into sections such as civil, moral, ceremonial and dietary. Men do that but not the Scriptures. No, the Scriptures say the law and they mean all of it.

 

[Soyeong]

I have no problem with those Scriptures. What I do is see the righteousness that they are speaking of in a different light. The Scriptures, which are God breathed, instruct us to not look at our own righteousness but to Christ's. He is all my righteousness, all my holiness and all that a believer needs. We are instructed by the Scriptures to rest in Him and be free from the burden of having to work out a righteousness of any sort.

To say that God is righteous is to say that God does what is right in accordance with His holy, righteous, and good standard. Jesus likewise was righteous, meaning he did what was right in accordance with the law, which is in accordance with God's standard. When we are declared to be righteous, we are declared to be someone who does what is right, so we are likewise called to follow Jesus's perfect example of living in accordance with the law. Doing what is righteous/practicing righteousness/training in righteousness isn't about outward appearances, but is simply what those who are righteous should do by faith as we walk in the Spirit. Nevertheless, there is a gap between our current behavior and that of Christ's perfect sinlessness. Sanctification is not about becoming more righteous, but about God working through us to shrink that gap and makes us to be more like Christ. He who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it on the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6).

Sanctification isn't getting better as we live this life of faith it is being set apart as God's, which is what the word means. It has three basic connotations: set apart by God as holy unto Him, declared holy by God in such a way as the essence stays the same, and to actually be made holy by God. Believers are set apart by God as His holy people in electing love, They are declared holy by God in the same way that the vessels of the Sanctuary were declared holy but their essence never changed, and we are made holy by God in the new birth.

Similar to above, those who are holy are called to have a holy conduct. We don't become more holy by having such a conduct, but it is what those who are holy should do by faith as we walk in the Spirit. We are both declared to be holy and told to have a holy conduct (1 Peter 1:13-16), and in order to have a holy conduct, we need to follow God's instructions for that in His law, starting with where verse 16 is quoting from.

No the righteous requirement of the law is perfect obedience. It must be perfect to be accepted. Lev. 22:21, Deut. 18:13. Anything less than perfection is not righteousness nor holiness. There are no degrees to righteousness or holiness. You are either righteous or you are not. You are either holy or you are not. The slightest imperfection stains it and destroys it.

I agree that the righteous requirement of the law is perfect obedience. When God completes the good work in us on the day of Christ Jesus, we will be perfectly obedient.

Romans 6:15-19 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,[c] you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

We were once slaves of lawlessness, but we were set free to become obedient slaves to God through His law leading to righteousness and to become slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

The instructions, as I pointed out earlier, are to show us that we must rest totally in Christ. Yes we are to live as honestly and uprightly as we can but that is not righteousness or holiness. We are instructed to serve Him and do all things as though it were for Christ's sake. But we are never told in the New Testament to use the law as a rule of life or as instruction in righteousness. We are never told to use the law to make us feel good about our lives or put on a show of religion.

We can't be perfectly obedient through our own efforts, so we must trust Christ to work through us to make us obedient. To serve God in all things is to obey His commands. His commands for how to have a righteous and holy conduct did not change between the OT and NT. I never said anything about using the law to make us feel good about or lives or put on a show of religion.

Actually the primary meaning of the word is termination. It does have other connotations though such as object, purpose and fulfillment. I am convinced, by the rest of the writing of Paul, that he intends it to be understood in all of them. Christ is the termination of the law, He is the object of the law, He is the purpose of the law and He is the fulfillment of the law.

Again, the goal is to be more like Christ in having a holy, righteous, and good conduct, so we have no need to be set free from instructions for how to do that, nor does God have any purpose for terminating those instructions short of everything being accomplished. I completely agree that Christ is the object, purpose, and fulfillment of the law, but termination has a different meaning that doesn't fit with the context. Furthermore, Israel was warned in Deuteronomy 13 about people who would perform wonders, but lead them away from obeying God's commands, so if Jesus had terminated the law, then he would have been a false prophet.

I think this article argues persuasively for how the verse should be translated:

http://www.godward.org/archives/special articles/how_is_christ_the end of law.htm

No it doesn't. First verse 20 explains what He means. in Matt. 5:17-19. He is in no way teaching that we can keep the law but that we are unable to.

You lost me, I'll quote it:

Matthew 5:17-20 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

To bring the law to an end would qualify as abolishing it, which Jesus specifically said he did not come to do. In Matthew 5:21-47, we have six examples Jesus filling up the law by interpreting it in its fullest sense as requiring complete righteousness. Jesus' point is verse 20 is that he expected his disciples to have complete observance of the law according to his teachings, not according the outward performance of the scribes and Pharisees while their hearts were far from God. If the law is received as purely obligation, then it is impossible to obey it, but if it is received by faith as a divine blessing and privilege, then keeping it is a pure delight. The Pharisees had led themselves and the people away from the true understanding and observance of the law and Jesus said he had come to restore truth and to make perfect the people's observance of the law.

As to the Rom. 3:31 passage I would remind you of the need to get the context. Paul had just been explaining how we are justified by Christ in perfect righteousness and justice and in verse 31 he simply is telling us that we do not make void the law by faith in Christ but we establish the law by faith in Christ because it is God who is righteous and declares His righteousness in the work of salvation and the death of Christ as our Substitute.

I don't seen how establishing the law by faith in Christ can be made to fit with Christ terminating the law. I think Paul was making the point in the previous verses that we are justified by faith apart from the law, but he foresaw that people would misunderstand him as saying that therefore it is unimportant to obey the law, so he added verse 31 to make it clear that the law still has a role. Our faith upholds the law by expressing itself through obedience to it. We do not keep the law in order to be justified, but because we have been justified. As Paul is saying in Ephesians 2:8-10, we are saved by grace through faith, not by works, but for the purpose of doing works. Works come after our justification, not before.

First the Lord didn't do away with the Sabbath He fulfilled the Sabbath in its type and purpose. Moreover even the Jews never truly kept the Sabbath and neither do you.

Please explain.

As to not all the laws applying to everybody I understand that the Levites had laws that applied to them alone. But you don't get to pick and choose which laws you are going to obey. The Scriptures never divide the law into sections such as civil, moral, ceremonial and dietary. Men do that but not the Scriptures. No, the Scriptures say the law and they mean all of it.

I agree that the Scriptures never divide the law into sections, furthermore when it defines sin as lawlessness, then it is not just speaking about moral laws. If we are not permitted to sin, then we need to obey all of the law with respect to the fact that some laws were given for the King, High Priest, priests, men, women, people living in the land, foreigners living among them, and to everyone.

 

[Goodbook]

Um ok that is def not baptist belief here.
I know baptists are known as strict, but we are not keeping every single law and living like jewish people.

I'm sorry. Jesus understood this was hard even for jews to do perfectly. And he definitely offered salvation to the gentiles not to make them keep laws but have it written on their hearts.

 

[Soyeong]

Um ok that is def not baptist belief here.
I know baptists are known as strict, but we are not keeping every single law and living like jewish people.

I asked Hammster if he would prefer if I didn't post in his thread. If he does, then I will respect his wishes, but I see no big deal with talking to Baptists about this topic.

I'm sorry. Jesus understood this was hard even for jews to do perfectly. And he definitely offered salvation to the gentiles not to make them keep laws but have it written on their hearts.

On the contrary, Jesus said his yoke was easy and his burden was light (Matthew 11:30). God also said His commands were not too difficult (Deuteronomy 30:11). It was the yoke of the Pharisees that was the heaven burden (Matthew 23:4). A "yoke" was a rabbinic term that referred to a rabbi's or group's interpretations for how the law should be obeyed. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for setting aside the commands of God to keep their own traditions, so the difference in their yokes was not whether God should be obeyed, but about the way in which He should be obeyed. The Pharisees had strayed from true obedience to God and Jesus said he came to fulfill the law by teaching how it should correctly be obeyed, both by word and by action.

The goal of a disciple was to learn how to think and act like their rabbi, or to essentially become an imitation of them (1 Corinthians 11:1). Jesus kept the law perfectly, so his disciples certainly would have learned how to keep the law from imitating him and taught their own disciples to do the same. Does it really make sense to you that we should become disciples of Christ, yet not try to imitate his sinless obedience to God's commands? For at least the first seven or so years after Christ's ascension up until Peter's vision in Acts 10, all Christians were Torah observant Jews. With Gentile inclusion, there originally was never any question about whether people coming to follow God should obey His commands - that was a given. What was not a given was whether Gentiles had to become Jewish proselytes and keep all their traditions in order to be saved.

The New Covenant involves God writing His law on our hearts so that we will obey it. The problem with the previous covenant was that His people disobeyed His laws, so God's solution was to make a New Covenant that would change that, not so that His people would continue to disobey Him.

 

[Goodbook]

Well so far he hasnt asked a lot from me that i cant do, so..i dotn see the point of beating up other people if they still eating bacon for example.

Shalom.

 

[Soyeong]

Well so far he hasnt asked a lot from me that i cant do, so..i dotn see the point of beating up other people if they still eating bacon for example.

Shalom.

It's not about beating people up for doing something, but about waking them up to what they should be doing. If Gentiles are called to have a holy conduct and the prohibition against eating bacon is part of God's instructions for how to have a holy conduct, then don't you think Gentiles should repent of that?

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I'm not sure what legalism has to do specifically with Baptists, so I'm not even sure why it was brought up in this subforum rather than something more general.

If we're trying to refine our understanding of the subject, then it doesn't help to have someone interfere just to challenge the premise. For example, if we were trying to gain a better understanding of the nature of God, then it wouldn't help to have an atheist interjecting his disbelief in the existence of God. We already know where you stand, and we already know that we disagree, and why.

 

[twin1954]

It's not about beating people up for doing something, but about waking them up to what they should be doing. If Gentiles are called to have a holy conduct and the prohibition against eating bacon is part of God's instructions for how to have a holy conduct, then don't you think Gentiles should repent of that?

You seem to forget that the Apostles required nothing from the Gentiles but to abstain from fornication, because it was a form of worship of idols, and to abstain from meat offered to idols. That is all. They didn't require them to keep the law in any way. Acts 15:24-29

Your view is true legalism and against the plain teaching of the Scriptures. Paul, speaking to the Galatians, asked if they had begun in the Spirit and now were being made perfect by the flesh. Gal. 3:3. That is what you are advocating. You desire to put the people of God under bondage again to the law to be made perfect by the flesh.

Moreover he writes to the Colossians in 2:4-23 not to let anyone judge them in the carnal ordinances, the law, which is will worship and just satisfying the flesh.

Trying to keep the law will do one of two things: it will rob you of any peace because you know you can't keep it or it will make you self-righteous. It never makes you better but worse.

 

[DeaconDean]

You seem to forget that the Apostles required nothing from the Gentiles but to abstain from fornication, because it was a form of worship of idols, and to abstain from meat offered to idols. That is all. They didn't require them to keep the law in any way. Acts 15:24-29

Your view is true legalism and against the plain teaching of the Scriptures. Paul, speaking to the Galatians, asked if they had begun in the Spirit and now were being made perfect by the flesh. Gal. 3:3. That is what you are advocating. You desire to put the people of God under bondage again to the law to be made perfect by the flesh.

Moreover he writes to the Colossians in 2:4-23 not to let anyone judge them in the carnal ordinances, the law, which is will worship and just satisfying the flesh.

Trying to keep the law will do one of two things: it will rob you of any peace because you know you can't keep it or it will make you self-righteous. It never makes you better but worse.

Amen!

The only thing I can add to this is the passage from Galatians 3:23-25.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Soyeong]

You seem to forget that the Apostles required nothing from the Gentiles but to abstain from fornication, because it was a form of worship of idols, and to abstain from meat offered to idols. That is all. They didn't require them to keep the law in any way. Acts 15:24-29

If you hold hard to this being an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required of Gentiles, then that would exclude the words of Jesus and other commands given to Gentiles in the NT, such as the commands to have a holy conduct and to not lie or steal. However, if you say that this was not intended to be an exhaustive list and that other laws are obviously included, then I'd agree with you. Acts 15:21 implies that they were already keeping the Sabbath.

Your view is true legalism and against the plain teaching of the Scriptures. Paul, speaking to the Galatians, asked if they had begun in the Spirit and now were being made perfect by the flesh. Gal. 3:3. That is what you are advocating. You desire to put the people of God under bondage again to the law to be made perfect by the flesh.

Jesus obeyed the law perfectly, but I would not say that he had fallen into legalism, so legalism is not about whether or not God should be obeyed, but about the manner in which His commands are obeyed. Legalism perverts God's commands by making them about us rather than about Him. The key element has always been faith and the law was always intended to be kept by faith in a way that builds a relationship between God and His people. God always disdained outward obedience to the law while people's hearts were far from Him (Isaiah 1:13-17, Mark 7:6-9). So people pervert the law when they take it away from being about a relationship with God by faith and make it about legalistically earning their justification, as what was happening in Galatians. It is a mistake to take a criticism of man's perversion of the law as a criticism of God's, holy, righteous, and good law.

I have never advocated that we need to keep the law in the way that the Jews said it needed to be kept in order to be saved and would argue against anyone who did hold that position. What I have said is that keeping the law is not about what we need to do in order to become justified, but about the conduct that we are called to have by faith after we have been justified. Children of God are called to have a righteous conduct, which is in accordance with God's instructions for that in the law (1 John 3:4-10).

Moreover he writes to the Colossians in 2:4-23 not to let anyone judge them in the carnal ordinances, the law, which is will worship and just satisfying the flesh.

Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.

This is a simple yet pervasive theme throughout the Bible and if you don't take it and apply it to every discussion about how we are to behave, then the simple truth is that you likely won't understand it. If you interpret Paul as saying that we shouldn't obey God, then you understood him differently than the Bereans did in Acts 17:11, who walked and talked with him and checked everything he said against Scripture. Colossians 2 is a perfect example of this:

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ.

Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

Romans 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Romans 7:14a For we know that the law is spiritual,

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,

It it very clear to me that either Paul was a confused schizophrenic or that these two chapters are not referring to the same thing. The laws of God are not carnal, but spiritual, they are not according to human tradition or self-made religion, but are holy, righteous, and good, and they are not a heavy burden, but are a delight to keep. Furthermore, saying that the commands of God are not according to Christ would be pitting the Son against the Father, as if the Father had mistakenly given bad laws which the Son needed to come fix. It's almost absurd to think that the Bible is God's revelation to bring redemption to the world and at the same time think that 80% of that revelation is inferior and carnal. Rather, it is the carnal mind that does not submit to God's law (Romans 8:7).

So in Colossians 2:16, Paul was not encouraging them to disregard those who were telling them to submit to God's commands, but rather they were eating and feasting according to God's commands and Paul was encouraging them not to let themselves be judged by those who were promoting human traditions and self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body. He was saying that God's appointed times are important to keep, they are shadows of the Messiah that teach important things about him and the world to come, so don't let anyone cause you to stop obeying God. This brings us right back to Acts 5:29, that we must obey God rather than men.

Trying to keep the law [in a perverted way] will do one of two things: it will rob you of any peace because you know you can't keep it or it will make you self-righteous. It never makes you better but worse.

I could agree with this with my modification. God never gave the law to Moses and the Israelites to rob them of their peace or to cause them to become self-righteous. God did not set a trap for His people and in fact He disdains self-righteousness. The Pharisees who were concerned with outward displays of righteousness while their hearts were far from God were perverting the law, which is what Jesus said he came to correct.

Matthew 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

It is false that following instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct by faith and the leading of the Spirit makes you worse, but rather we are new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works (Ephesians 2:10). The law is profitable for training us in righteousness and equipping us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

 

[Soyeong]

Amen!

The only thing I can add to this is the passage from Galatians 3:23-25.

God Bless

Till all are one.

"If your father were king and you were a young child destined to rule one day, he would get a tutor to train you and teach you what you would need to know to rule the kingdom when your time came. He would give the tutor authority to teach, discipline, and punish you.

When your time came, would you immediately shoot your tutor, reject everything he had ever taught you, and then have the audacity to proclaim your actions to be in accordance with the wishes, desires, and intentions of your father the king? The tutor is not the king. He is given by the king to train those who will one day rule. They must be trained so that they can properly make decisions and act in the liberty, freedom, responsibility, and position they will one day have.

The tutor is there so that you might take his lessons to heart, so that they might become a natural part of your thought processes. You are to rule according to what you have learned, even though the tutor no longer has authority to control or punish you. You will not need to be controlled from then outside, because you will have accepted what you have been taught. You will be controlled from within your heart. It will be your second nature."

 

[DeaconDean]

"If your father were king and you were a young child destined to rule one day, he would get a tutor to train you and teach you what you would need to know to rule the kingdom when your time came. He would give the tutor authority to teach, discipline, and punish you.

When your time came, would you immediately shoot your tutor, reject everything he had ever taught you, and then have the audacity to proclaim your actions to be in accordance with the wishes, desires, and intentions of your father the king?

That very things happened numerous time over the history of man. So what else is new?

The tutor is not the king. He is given by the king to train those who will one day rule. They must be trained so that they can properly make decisions and act in the liberty, freedom, responsibility, and position they will one day have.

Always?

The tutor is there so that you might take his lessons to heart, so that they might become a natural part of your thought processes. You are to rule according to what you have learned, even though the tutor no longer has authority to control or punish you. You will not need to be controlled from then outside, because you will have accepted what you have been taught. You will be controlled from within your heart. It will be your second nature."

Never argued against that. I do however, have a problem with "Christians" trying to force upon us an obedience to "Laws" that are no longer needed.

There was a time, when mans relationship with God was determined by how well he kept the Law. No longer. My realtionship with God is determined on Christ.

If some minute part of the "Old Testament" Laws still apply today then we know that Christ didn't have a house of His own to call His own. Yet according to Deu. 22:8, a "battlement" (knee wall) had to be built around the house, lest somebody fall and get killed which would "bring blood upon the house". So how did Jesus "fulfill" this Law? Do you have a "knee wall" around your roof?

Also, I would add that the Decalouge and the "Law" were describe in Deu 4:13 as one "covenant". And in Hebrews, we are told specifically (rather the Jewish Christians) that they were "under a new covenant, established upon better promises" (cf Heb. 8:6)

I try to obey GOd not because I was brought up on "Christian values", or taught the Decalogue, rather, I try to obey God because I love Him. and not because of any "law" or "laws".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Soyeong]

That very things happened numerous time over the history of man. So what else is new?

Whether it has happened numerous times in history is a different matter from whether or not it should. If God has given you a tutor and you've reach the point where you no longer need it, then you've reached the point where you should be doing what the tutor taught you on your own, not where you should act like what the tutor taught you is unimportant to follow.

Never argued against that. I do however, have a problem with "Christians" trying to force upon us an obedience to "Laws" that are no longer needed.

The law instructs how to have a holy, righteous, and good, conduct, and as obedient children of God, that conduct is expected of us (1 John 3:4-10, 1 Peter 1:13-16).

There was a time, when mans relationship with God was determined by how well he kept the Law. No longer. My realtionship with God is determined on Christ.

There has never been a time where's man's relationship with God was determined by how well he kept the law, but rather faith has always been a key element, with obedience to the law being the proper expression of faith. There were times throughout the Bible where people had outward obedience in accordance with the law, but their hearts were far from God, and God disdained it, which would not be the case if all that mattered was obedience (Isaiah 1:13-17).

If some minute part of the "Old Testament" Laws still apply today then we know that Christ didn't have a house of His own to call His own. Yet according to Deu. 22:8, a "battlement" (knee wall) had to be built around the house, lest somebody fall and get killed which would "bring blood upon the house". So how did Jesus "fulfill" this Law? Do you have a "knee wall" around your roof?

Context is important. This law was given during a time when people built houses where the roof was treated as 2nd floor. If I were to own such a house, then I would put such a wall around my roof.

Also, I would add that the Decalouge and the "Law" were describe in Deu 4:13 as one "covenant". And in Hebrews, we are told specifically (rather the Jewish Christians) that they were "under a new covenant, established upon better promises" (cf Heb. 8:6)

I agree we are under a New Covenant with better promises and a superior mediator, but the same basic law structure remains the same. God did not change what it means to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct. All covenants with God build on the previous ones rather than replace them.

I try to obey GOd not because I was brought up on "Christian values", or taught the Decalogue, rather, I try to obey God because I love Him. and not because of any "law" or "laws".

Same here. The law is God's instructions for how He wants His people to obey Him, so if you seek to obey God because you love him, then you should express your love to Him through obedience to His law.

 

[DeaconDean]

The law instructs how to have a holy, righteous, and good, conduct, and as obedient children of God, that conduct is expected of us (1 John 3:4-10, 1 Peter 1:13-16).

Well, if that is the case, then both Peter and Paul did not live a "holy, righteous, and good, conduct, andas obedient children of God".

I know of at two instances where Peter sinned. Direct disobedience to God, and living as a hypocrite.

And at least two instances where Paul disobeyed the Holy Spirit.

There has never been a time where's man's relationship with God was determined by how well he kept the law, but rather faith has always been a key element, with obedience to the law being the proper expression of faith. There were times throughout the Bible where people had outward obedience in accordance with the law, but their hearts were far from God, and God disdained it, which would not be the case if all that mattered was obedience (Isaiah 1:13-17).

I think, you should go back a nread the Midrash.

Context is important. This law was given during a time when people built houses where the roof was treated as 2nd floor. If I were to own such a house, then I would put such a wall around my roof.

Here again, you missed the point. If Jesus fulfilled the Law, where did He fulfill that one?

I agree we are under a New Covenant with better promises and a superior mediator, but the same basic law structure remains the same. God did not change what it means to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct. All covenants with God build on the previous ones rather than replace them.

And again, according to your statement, I have been already made holy and righteous, and in the entire history of CHRIStianity, show me one who has "good conduct".

Same here. The law is God's instructions for how He wants His people to obey Him, so if you seek to obey God because you love him, then you should express your love to Him through obedience to His law.

And there it is, legalism. Obey his law which is contrary to what Paul said in Romans 7:4.

If it was impossible to obey it before the cross, how do you expect us to obey it after the cross.

And one more thing, all the things you claim, "holy, righteous, and good, conduct, and as obedient children of God", the Law hada serious fault in it. Nobody could do it, let alone fulfill it and , it could not establish those things you say. (cf heb. 8:7)

John Gill agrees:

For if that first covenant had been faultless,.... Not the covenant of works; that was made in paradise, this on Mount Sinai; that was made with Adam and his posterity, this with the Jews only; that had no mediator, this had one, Moses; that was not dedicated with blood, this was; that had no forgiveness of sin in it, this had; under that saints are not, but they were under this; to be under that was no privilege, but to be under this it was, as to the Israelites, who on this account were preferable to all other nations: nor is the pure covenant of grace as administered under the Gospel, meant; for though that was first made, yet is the second in administration; that includes the elect of God among the Gentiles, this only the Jews; that is made only with them, and is made known to them whom God calls by his grace in time, this was made with good and bad; that was of pure grace, this required works in order to life and the enjoyment of its blessings; that is an everlasting covenant, this is done away; and the one is manifestly distinguished from the other in this chapter: but the covenant here designed is the covenant of grace, as administered under the legal dispensation, and which was a typical one; the people with whom it was made were typical of the true Israel of God; the blessings promised in it were shadows of good things to come; the works it required were typical of Christ's obedience to the law, in the room and stead of his people, by which he fulfilled it; the sacrifices on which it was established were types of the sacrifice and death of Christ; the mediator of it. Moses, was a type of Christ, the Mediator of the new covenant; and it was confirmed by the blood of beasts, which was typical of the blood of Christ: this covenant was not "faultless", but was faulty or blameworthy; not that there was anything sinful and criminal in it, but it was deficient; there was a weakness in it; its sacrifices could not make men perfect, nor take away sin; there wanted a larger supply of the grace of the Spirit to write the law of God upon the heart, and to enable men to keep it; there was not in it so full a revelation of the mind and will of God, and of his love and grace, as has since been made; nor did it exhibit a free and full pardon for all sins, unclogged of every condition; the persons that were under it were faulty; hence it follows, that God found fault with them, they could not answer the requirements and end of it: had it been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second; the covenant of grace unveiled in the Gospel dispensation, called the better testament, the better covenant, and the new covenant; in order to, introduce which, the first was removed, that this might succeed it; just as because there was no perfection by the Levitical priesthood, it became necessary that another priest should arise, of another order.

SOurce

Keep plugging away, one day you'll get it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Soyeong]

Well, if that is the case, then both Peter and Paul did not live a "holy, righteous, and good, conduct, andas obedient children of God".

I know of at two instances where Peter sinned. Direct disobedience to God, and living as a hypocrite.

And at least two instances where Paul disobeyed the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, neither Peter or Paul claimed to be without sin, but the fact that they weren't sinless doesn't mean they aren't called to have a sinless conduct.

I think, you should go back a nread the Midrash.

Helpful responses engage what I said by explaining why you think my view is wrong and then by explaining why you think your view is correct. Telling me to go reread something without even being clear what Midrash I should read is less than helpful.

Here again, you missed the point. If Jesus fulfilled the Law, where did He fulfill that one?

If Jesus owned such a house, then he fulfilled this one by properly demonstrating though his actions how it should be obeyed. Jesus also brought fullness to this law in the general sense by teaching about the spiritual principles behind it.

And again, according to your statement, I have been already made holy and righteous, and in the entire history of CHRIStianity, show me one who has "good conduct".

Whether any Christians has ever had a good conduct is a different issue than whether Christians should have a good conduct. We've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but again, that doesn't mean we aren't called to have a sinless conduct. "Go and sin no more."

And there it is, legalism. Obey his law which is contrary to what Paul said in Romans 7:4.

Again, Jesus followed the law perfectly, but that doesn't mean he fell into legalism, so legalism is not about whether God should be obeyed, but about the way in which He is obeyed. Do you just outwardly obey God's instructions according to the letter without regard to their intent not by faith in order to justify yourself while your heart is far from God? Or do you inwardly obey God's instructions according to the spirit or intent behind the law as an expression of your love and faith in or to draw close to God as you are transformed to be more like Christ in his obedience to God through sanctification? The first is a perversion of the law, while the second is the way it was always intended to be followed.

Paul said that he wouldn't even know what sin was without the law (Romans 7:7), and that we are not permitted to sin (Romans 6:15), so we are not permitted to break the law and he did not understand the status of being dead to the law as granting permission to sin. Rather, in the preceding example from the law he gave (Romans 7:1-3), if the woman's husband died, she would not be permitted to disobey any of the other laws, but rather she would only be from free from the aspect of the law that would penalize her if she were to live with another man while he had still lived. So the status of being dead to the law only frees us from the aspect of it that would penalize us, as Paul concludes in Romans 8:1 there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus

If it was impossible to obey it before the cross, how do you expect us to obey it after the cross.

Christ died on the cross to free us from our sin nature's mastery over us so that we could be free to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct under a new master (Romans 6:15-19).

And one more thing, all the things you claim, "holy, righteous, and good, conduct, and as obedient children of God", the Law hada serious fault in it. Nobody could do it, let alone fulfill it and , it could not establish those things you say. (cf heb. 8:7)

John Gill agrees:



SOurce

God Bless

Till all are one.

The reason why instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct can not make us holy, righteous, and good is because our sin nature prevented us from obeying it (Romans 8:3). So God's solution wasn't to lower His holy, righteous, and good standard so that it was no longer important to have such a conduct, but rather it was to raise us up so that we could have such a conduct. He did this by sending His Son to pay for our penalty for transgressing the law and to set us free from our sin nature's mastery over us and by sending His Spirit to lead us in obedience so that we might meet the righteous requirement of the law through obedience to it (Romans 8:3-7). Sanctification is about being transformed to be more like Christ so that when God completes the good work he began in us on the day of Christ Jesus we will have perfect obedience to God as Jesus did.

Nobody could do it, let alone fulfill it

Galatians 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Everyone since Moses who has loved their neighbor in accordance with the law has fulfilled it.

Keep plugging away, one day you'll get it.

I didn't get it for 30 years, but it was because I kept plugging away that I did get it. If you keep plugging away, you'll get it too.

 

[now faith]

You seem to forget that the Apostles required nothing from the Gentiles but to abstain from fornication, because it was a form of worship of idols, and to abstain from meat offered to idols. That is all. They didn't require them to keep the law in any way. Acts 15:24-29

Your view is true legalism and against the plain teaching of the Scriptures. Paul, speaking to the Galatians, asked if they had begun in the Spirit and now were being made perfect by the flesh. Gal. 3:3. That is what you are advocating. You desire to put the people of God under bondage again to the law to be made perfect by the flesh.

Moreover he writes to the Colossians in 2:4-23 not to let anyone judge them in the carnal ordinances, the law, which is will worship and just satisfying the flesh.

Trying to keep the law will do one of two things: it will rob you of any peace because you know you can't keep it or it will make you self-righteous. It never makes you better but worse.

This passage is clear on our requirements set forth by Hebrew Apostles in the book of Acts:


But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
[6] And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
[7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
[8] And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
[9] And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
[10] Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear

Notice verse 5 at the beginning, there rose up a certain sect of the Pharisees.

This is a true example of legalism, a select group of people who want to impose their own will over God's instruction.

What a telling question in verse 10: why tempt ye God? To paraphrase why go against God's will?

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
[23] But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
[24] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
[25] But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
[26] For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
[27] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
[28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians chapter 3

Legalism is not based on the Word of God,it is based on the individuals opinions on the Word of God.

Stubbornness is the root of legalism as well stubbornness is a form of idolatry,in that your pride and predisposition supersedes God's truth.


Note: I am not accusing anyone here of idolatry,I am writing on the general topic of legalism.

 

[Soyeong]

This passage is clear on our requirements set forth by Hebrew Apostles in the book of Acts:


But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
[6] And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
[7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
[8] And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
[9] And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
[10] Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear

Notice verse 5 at the beginning, there rose up a certain sect of the Pharisees.

This is a true example of legalism, a select group of people who want to impose their own will over God's instruction.

What a telling question in verse 10: why tempt ye God? To paraphrase why go against God's will?

The Pharisees had many oral traditions for how to keep the law that they traced the command for back to Moses. Many thought that it was impossible to keep the written law of Moses without knowing their oral traditions for how to keep it. For instance, they reason it was impossible to keep the command not to work on the Sabbath without knowing what counted as work, they gave a higher priority to their traditions, which Jesus criticized them for (Mark 7:6-9). In any case, they would never have considered teaching someone to keep the Sabbath without also teaching them their traditions, so that was all wrapped up in their concept of what it meant to keep the law of Moses.

So what was rejected was that Gentiles had to keep their many oral traditions and that they needed to keep the law of Moses in order to be saved, but they did not reject God's holy, righteous, and good law.

Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.

This theme is consistent throughout the Bible where man's laws are overthrown while God's laws are upheld. It's almost bizarre to consider teaching people to obey God's commands to be going against His will.