Legalism

fhansen said:

And yet don't the EO teach that wanton, persistent grave sin/deeds of the flesh should keep one from heaven, with or without any claims to having faith?

Click to expand...

Yes, I was thinking about a person who is basically keeping the moral law within the Lord’s commandments ( Romans 13:8-10 etc.) but lacks a proper sense of confidence & hope in their salvation ( Romans 8:15-25).This should be balanced with the need for confession of course ( 1 John 1:5-10).

Lukaris said:

Yes, I was thinking about a person who is basically keeping the moral law within the Lord’s commandments ( Romans 13:8-10 etc.)

Click to expand...

I am hoping you realize Paul is only quoting the second greatest commandment on how to love thy neighbor, it does not include all of God's moral commandments or the greatest commandment of all, how to love God with all our heart, mind and soul

Soyeong said:

Opposition to true judgement is not in opposition to doing what God has commanded.

Click to expand...

True judgement may in fact be in opposition to the letter of the Law.
If true judgement allows the healing of a blind man on the Sabbath, what were the scribes and Pharisees so mad about ?

Soyeong said:

There is no Sanhedrin. Moreover, Jesus gave himself to pay the penalty for our sins, so it would be unjust to enforce a penalty that has already been paid.

Click to expand...

If we are still indebted to the Law, we must stone adulterers.
I am glad you acknowledge that at least that much of the Law has been done away with.

Soyeong said:

That is not a matter of demanding each attention, but a matter of priority. God commanded to circumcise babies on the 8th day and commanded to rest on the Sabbath, so if that happens to fall on the Sabbath, then the command to circumcise takes priority.

Click to expand...

Please show me that scripture.

Soyeong said:

The written command is also to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Click to expand...

Can you show that OT scripture too ?

Soyeong said:

Deuteronomy 7:7.

Click to expand...

That had nothing to do with the conversation.
Perhaps you mistyped the scrip' ?

Soyeong said:

The Law of Moss is perfect (Psalms 19:7), it is of liberty (Psalms 119:45), and it blesses those who obey it (Psalms 119:1-3), so when James 1:25 speaks about the perfect law of liberty that blesses those who obey it, he wasn't saying anything about the Mosaic Law that wasn't already said in the Psalms. Christ set a perfect example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6).

Click to expand...

It is written..."Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?" (2 Cor 3:6-8)
Your Psalms scrips' may have been true at the time they were written, but a new and better covenant has superceded it.
Christ's example shows us that it doesn't matter what you eat or if you washed your hands first.
Christ's example shows us that working on the Sabbath means nothing.
Christ's example shows us that Gentiles have as much right to God's grace as Israelites.
Christ's example has shown us that the Mosaic covenant is over.

Soyeong said:

Sin is what is contrary to God's character and sin is the the transgression of God's law because it was given to teach us how to be a doer of His character traits. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45). Unclean animals have not been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, but rather it is an abomination to eat them. God's laws are not optional.

Click to expand...

I thank God for doing away with that which could not make the man that lived under it perfect, and supplanting it with a new covenant that could. (Heb 9:8-10)
God's laws in the new covenant are...Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.
And love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Soyeong said:

Al of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:142). The only way that instructions for how to be holy as God is holy could pass away would be if God were to cease to be holy. Paul did not speak against obeying God's command to becoming circumcised, but against obeying that command in order to become saved.

Click to expand...

That instruction to be holy is still in force, and thankfully, now inn the new covenant, accomplishable !
Circumcision has gone, with dietary rules, feast keeping, tithing, temple service, and sabbath keeping.
None of that will save a man.

Soyeong said:

Our salvation from sin would be incomplete if we were only saved from the penalty of our sin while our lives continued to be directed at being doers of sin,

Click to expand...

I agree, but the written ordinances that once legislated what was a sin have changed.
It is no longer a sin to go into a Gentile's house.

Soyeong said:

so there must be an aspect of our gift of salvation that we are experiencing in the present by directing our lives towards being a doer of God's law.

Click to expand...

That aspect is holiness.
Men of the OT couldn't manifest that perfectly.

Soyeong said:

In Titus 2:11-13, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly. How can someone still have that gift of they cease to participate in that training?

Click to expand...

May I inquire as to which version of the bible you use ?
I can't find the idea of being "trained by grace" in the KJV.

I find you POV to be arch-legalism.
That is different than the neo-legalism illused by the proponents of unrighteousness these days.
I will continue to abide by Paul's writings on this topic, and he wrote..."But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." (Gal 5:18)

SabbathBlessings said:

I am hoping you realize Paul is only quoting the second greatest commandment on how to love thy neighbor, it does not include all of God's moral commandments or the greatest commandment of all, how to love God with all our heart, mind and soul

Click to expand...

I was thinking that within Romans 13:8-10 and like 1 Corinthians 13:12-13. I am trying to state this in an Orthodox but also ( as much as possible) commonly agreed Christian sense.

My post also double backed to yours in post #22, guess I jumbled my quote.

Lukaris said:

I was thinking that within Romans 13:8-10 and like 1 Corinthians 13:12-13. I am trying to state this in an Orthodox but also ( as much as possible) general Christian sense.

My post also double backed to yours in post #22, guess I jumbled my quote.

Click to expand...

The greatest commandment on how to love God with all our heart, soul and mind is for all Christians. We see what this entails in Deut 5 and Deut 6 what Jesus was quoting from.

SabbathBlessings said:

The greatest commandment on how to love God with all our heart, soul and mind is for all Christians. We see what this entails in Deut 5 and Deut 6 what Jesus was quoting from.

Click to expand...

This is the Gospel truth.

Lukaris said:

Yes, I was thinking about a person who is basically keeping the moral law within the Lord’s commandments ( Romans 13:8-10 etc.) but lacks a proper sense of confidence & hope in their salvation ( Romans 8:15-25).This should be balanced with the need for confession of course ( 1 John 1:5-10).

Click to expand...

Balance is a good term for all of this. We need to weigh how well we're doing in regard to good fruit; we need to have a balanced view of our salvation status: not over-confident with absolute certainty but nonetheless assured to the extent we're livng as children of God should, while not so assured if we aren't.

fhansen said:

Surely there is an element of that, the need for reciprocity, in it.

Click to expand...

Hello fhansen, first off, I just glanced at some of the rest of this thread, and I must say that this is turning into a very interesting one

Now (just to be clear), when you say that there is an element of that involved in our ongoing relationship with God, is "that" in reference to a quid pro quo, our need to "earn" God's love, or both? Thanks!

fhansen said:

If we’re not becoming like Him, coming to love as He does, because He first loved us, now that we’ve become grafted into the Vine via faith, then we’re not His after all, even if the power to be transformed comes from Him to begin with. For example:

Click to expand...

What's this? Have you become a Catholic with Calvinist leanings now? (sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, make that Augustinian leanings instead ). Yes, of course you are correct, if we are not becoming less and less sinful and more and more righteous & loving (more and more Christlike day by day), then either God is failing at His promise to sanctify us .. e.g. Philippians 1:6 (which I don't believe is possible), or we are not/never have been His adopted children.

fhansen said:

We can and ~must~ be righteous, but apart from the law.

Click to expand...

How can we do that?

Also, what rule is used to determine what is/what is not righteous, if not the Law of God?

Thanks There is more of your post to reply to, but I think that I'll stop here and wait to hear back from you first.

God bless you!!

--David

.

St_Worm2 said:

Now (just to be clear), when you say that there is an element of that involved in our ongoing relationship with God, is "that" in reference to a quid pro quo, our need to "earn" God's love, or both? Thanks!

Click to expand...

We must do our part, respond to grace, returning love for love-or else we're nothing-and "faith" is just another word. So we don't earn God's love; He loves all, but we must return it, or else we're not even His, much less beginning to approach our very created purpose, incidentally.

St_Worm2 said:

What's this? Have you become a Catholic with Calvinist leanings now? (sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, make that Augustinian leanings instead ). Yes, of course you are correct, if we are not becoming less and less sinful and more and more righteous & loving (more and more Christlike day by day), then either God is failing at His promise to sanctify us .. e.g. Philippians 1:6 (which I don't believe is possible), or we are not/never have been His adopted children.

Click to expand...

In Catholcism there's one more choice; we've turned back away from Him. Grace, IOW, is resistible. Everything begins with grace, as per Catholic doctrines that were officially laid down some 15 centuries ago based largely on Augustine's arguments against Pelagainism, BTW. The virtues of faith, hope, and love are gifts of grace, for example, but they're also a human choice, to accept and act upon-and grow in-those gifts. Or not. Love is necessarily a choice or else it isn't love at all. So we must draw near to God and then we become more and more like Him; the EO call it theosis whereas Catholicism calls it divinization, something God always intended for man but something man opts out of the moment he opts out of union with Him and tries to procure or attain to godhood on his own, apart from God, an option Adam effectively took in Eden.

So the real difference is in whether or not man can say "no" to God, and of course he can- or else no sin/moral evil could ever exist. And rather than preventing Adam from sinning by his act of disobedience to begin with, or healing/forgiving Adam immediately, God deemed it well to patiently work with and guide and prepare and teach man over centuries, centuries filled with strife and suffering and victimization as ugly as can be imagined as man experimented with his autonomy from God and the sin that results. We all do it to one degree or another, still attracted to the family tradition of rebellious self-righteousness and pride intiated by Adam. But God's there in and through it all and, in the fullness of time, as man might begin to be ready to accept the light, He sent His Son to reveal the nature and will of the true God in no uncertain terms so that we might finally turn back and be healed by Him, jaded with the ways of a godless world like prodigals sick of the pigsty.

He won't force this matter on us; He's obviously never been interested in automatons or He'd never have given free will to man to begin with, the freedom to foolishly say "no" to Him. He wants us to appreciate, to participate, to begin to value and want what He in His perfect wisdom values and wants: for us to begin to value and choose love and its Source over all the other options-all the other voices out there selling their various wares of temporary worldly selfish offerings that make great promises but can never satisfy-and often cause untold harm in our pursuit of them. Anyway, by His grace God informs and beckons and draws and coaxes us to Himself, but will not outright cause or compel us in any way to come: that would be Calvinsism.

St_Worm2 said:

How can we do that?

Also, what rule is used to determine what is/what is not righteous, if not the Law of God?

Click to expand...

Love already knows-read 1 Cor 13:4-8. The law of God is based on love-it tells us what love "looks like", so to speak, and to the extent that we love we obey the law even if we've never heard it (Rom 2:13). But until we're "perfected in love", the law still serves as a guide, a tutor as Paul put it, reminding and convicting us of when we're failing to love. Anyway, that love is where God-who is love-wants us at the end of the day, so that the Catholic church can teach, quoting a 16th century believer:
"At the evening of life we shall we judged on our love."

And we can do that; the only way we can do that, achieving that righteousness, in fact, is by grace as we walk in the Spirit, now reconciled with and in communion/fellowship with God, the Vine, 'apart from whom we can do nothing'. The Catholic Catechism, quoting Augustine, put the relationship of grace to man this way:

"Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing."

And Augustine would agree that we can also thwart that grace and work of His, refusing to come when He calls, or failing to remain in Him after.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Legalism is an excessive focus on strict adherence to laws, rules, or rituals, sometimes at the expense of the deeper spiritual relationship with God. It can manifest as the belief that salvation or God's love can be earned solely through good works or obedience to religious laws, rather than through grace and faith. The Church teaches that while good works and obedience are important, they are a response to God's grace, not a means to earn it.

This perspective emphasises that God's love and salvation are gifts, and our actions should flow from gratitude and love for Him, rather than a fear of punishment or a desire to "earn" His favour.

Click to expand...

"excessive" is a subjective term.

I think a more objective understanding is -

"legalism is any act past present or future that you might point to as the basis for your salvation other than fully submitting to Christ now and following His teaching".

In other words the one that says "I don't live as Christ would have me today, I am not in line with Christ today - but that does not matter because 2 years ago I did this, or once each month I do this other thing" - is relying on legalism.

St_Worm2 said:

Hello Xeno.of.athens, is it possible for us to "earn" our salvation from God (even in part), and if so, how do we go about doing that?

Click to expand...

Xeno.of.athens said:

no.

Click to expand...

Lukaris said:

I tend to believe what St. Paul tells us in Colossians 1:10-23 is that salvation is by grace in a life lived by faith is how Orthodoxy sees it.

Click to expand...

My pious friend @Xeno.of.athens and my pious Orthodox brother @Lukaris have answered correctly.

To claim we earn our own salvation is the heresy of Pelagianism, which was refuted by both St. Augustine of Hippo and, in a more comprehensive and useful way as far as we Orthodox are concerned, by St. John Cassian.

Some Calvinists accuse us of being “semi-Pelagian” but this is false, because in no way do we claim salvation can be obtained by a human; Pelagius was a monergist, but the opposite of a Calvinist monergist or a Universalist monergist, in that while the Calvinist and Universalist believe that God saves us regardless of what we do, the Pelagians believe that we have to save ourselves and that our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ saves us only be showing us the way, which we in the Orthodox faith regard as being a denial of his status as “Savior”, since we worship Christ as our Savior, and not as a Divine Role Model.

Additionally, in explaining the Nestorian heresy to St. Celestine, one of the ancient saints, it may have been St. Cyril of Alexandria or it may have been someone else, I can’t recall, likened it to a Christological Pelagianism, but i can’t recall the specifics of their argument, but if desired I can look that up.

At any rate, the use of the term “semi-Pelagian” is extremely offensive because it implies that the Orthodox are semi-heretical, because we believe in synergy, that is to say, that God does not force us to love him but rather desires our voluntary love; I understand why Calvinists and other monergists might disagree, since from my analysis Scripture can be read in either a monergist or a synergist way, and there were ancient monergists, mostly believers in Apokatastasis however rather than in selective salvation in the manner of Calvinists or some Lutherans. However, for those who disagree, we should not be accused of being semi-Pelagian, that is to say, semi-heretical, because, aside from the fact that the fifth ecumenical synod requires the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics to reject monergism (it is not binding on Oriental Orthodox, but they are synergists also, nor on the Church of the East; some members of which were historically monergist but not in a Calvinist sense but rather in terms of a conviction in Apokatastasis, which nonetheless falls short of hard universalism, but is still monergist, for example, we see this reflected in the more controversial writings of St. Isaac the Syrian and in the Book of the Bee of Mar Solomon of Basra in its brief eschatological conclusion).

As someone who has worked for a Congregationalist denomination as a presbyter before it became too liberal, and who also has led conservative Congregationalist missions which are not specifically reformed, I urge tolerance on this issue, and also I would note that there exists a reconciliation: specifically, God, by virtue of being omniscient, has the ability to know who will be saved and who will not be in the case of both Orthodox and Reformed theology, and God’s omniscience and sovereignty is not disputed, nor do the Orthodox dispute the ability of God to save people arbitrarily. We are synergists with regards to the normal sacramental life of the church but in a manner that does not deny God’s ability to save someone monergistically if God wanted to do that, but it seems to us that God wants us to love Him willingly, and through the grace of the Holy Spirit, enables us to do that.

Lukaris said:

This is the Gospel truth.

Click to expand...

Yes it is, although some people will accuse the Orthodox falsely of not following it because we disagree with their ideas about worship.

The Liturgist said:

To claim we earn our own salvation is the heresy of Pelagianism, which was refuted by both St. Augustine of Hippo and, in a more comprehensive and useful way as far as we Orthodox are concerned, by St. John Cassian.

Click to expand...

Hello The Liturgist, I wasn't claiming anything in that post, just asking a question or two for clarity's sake about a couple of things that Xeno said in the OP (the majority of which I agreed with).

Here's the quote. What I had a question about really amounts to two words, which I will put in bold type below).

Legalism is an excessive focus on strict adherence to laws, rules, or rituals, sometimes at the expense of the deeper spiritual relationship with God. It can manifest as the belief that salvation or God's love can be earned solely through good works or obedience to religious laws, rather than through grace and faith.

Click to expand...

If Xeno had simply said that "Legalism...can manifest as the belief that salvation or God's love can be earned through good works...........", we wouldn't be talking right now, but since he said, "earned SOLELY", instead, I thought it best to ask him for clarification. After all, "legalism" could also include the idea that our good works and obedience are ~part~ of the reason that God chooses to save us.

The Liturgist said:

Some Calvinists accuse us of being “semi-Pelagian” but this is false, because in no way do we claim salvation can be obtained by a human; Pelagius was a monergist, but the opposite of a Calvinist monergist or a Universalist monergist, in that while the Calvinist and Universalist believe that God saves us regardless of what we do, the Pelagians believe that we have to save ourselves and that our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ saves us only be showing us the way, which we in the Orthodox faith regard as being a denial of his status as “Savior”, since we worship Christ as our Savior, and not as a Divine Role Model.

Click to expand...

From what I remember when I studied Pelagius years ago, he did not insist that salvation had to be obtained solely by us or even partially by us, only that it COULD be obtained in those ways, which is, of course, a heretical belief/teaching as you've already mentioned (just to be clear, I'm not giving credence to any of the teachings of Pelagius here).

Also, for clarity's sake, I've been speaking specifically of God's justifying grace, which is given to us at the very moment that we come to saving faith and are granted eternal life by God .. e.g. John 5:24. We Protestants, as I know you know, speak of salvation in at least three parts, justification, sanctification and glorification, rather than using the single word "justification" to represent all three (I know that this has and continues to cause misunderstandings between Protestants and Catholics in our discussions, both here and elsewhere).

Now, with all of that said, I have a question for you about something that you said in your last post (this is for clarity's sake, just FYI, so I can know if we are on the same page or not).

You said that, "....the Calvinist and Universalist believe that God saves us regardless of what we do....". What do you mean by that, exactly, and how does the "Calvinist" belief differ from your own EO beliefs concerning this part of soteriology? Are you saying that the EOC teaches that "God saves us with regard to what we do", instead?

Thanks

God bless you!!

--David

Edit: One last thing, I've never been fond of identity politics, nor am I a fan of identity religion (because it often results in unproductive arguments between antagonists rather than fruitful discussions between brothers and sisters in Christ). So, going forward, if it's ok with you, could we just talk Bible, Biblicist to Biblicist, IOW, instead of continuing on with identity religion? Thanks

St_Worm2 said:

You said that, "....the Calvinist and Universalist believe that God saves us regardless of what we do....". What do you mean by that, exactly, and how does the "Calvinist" belief differ from your own EO beliefs concerning this part of soteriology? Are you saying that the EOC teaches that "God saves us with regard to what we do", instead?

Click to expand...

Insofar as we regard grace as being resistable, martyrdom voluntary, and love for God voluntary (God loves us regardless, but not all of us love Him; being in His immediate presence while hating God causes us to experience the consuming fire of His love as wrath and is torturous, and so as a final mercy for such persons, God places them in the outer darkness away from his light; I rather like what CS Lewis wrote on the subject of Hell and would regard it as generally applicable in this respect).

St_Worm2 said:

One last thing, I've never been fond of identity politics, nor am I a fan of identity religion (because it often results in unproductive arguments between antagonists rather than fruitful discussions between brothers and sisters in Christ). So, going forward, if it's ok with you, could we just talk Bible, Biblicist to Biblicist, IOW, instead of continuing on with identity religion? Thanks

Click to expand...

Well, I can’t renounce my Orthodox Christianity, nor would I expect you to renounce your Calvinism; however, the answer is absolutely, provided you are a liturgical or semi-liturgical Christian who is non-Iconoclastic and anti-Nestorian, who would be comfortable with liturgical Calvinists like my friend @hedrick who post in Traditional Theology, because in the Traditional Theology forum we operate on an ecumenical basis, however, we do celebrate the heritage of our respective churches, whether Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist, Orthodox, Catholic, Methodist or Moravian or another denomination, for example, Congregationalists, because we are united by our belief in the importance of the liturgy and of Patristics and of the traditions of worship that unite the liturgical churches, that we all share in common. I hope that is acceptable to you because I myself dislike factionalism and I dislike the continuing assault on liturgical Christians including liturgical Calvinists sustained by a minority of Restorationists, non-denominational individuals and fundamentalists who in many cases are motivated primarily by anti-Catholicism, which spills over into a contempt for all liturgical churches.

Our friend @Xeno.of.athens does raise one other point that would apply regardless, that being that there are differences in exegetical models, but in the case of some liturgical Calvinists I have found these differences to be insubstantial.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Legalism is an excessive focus on strict adherence to laws, rules,

Click to expand...

Jesus was sinless -- some might call that "excessive" focus on obedience given that all the rest of us have sinned. But Jesus was not promoting legalism at all.

Legalism is relying on some prior act/work on your part to excuse you from being in good relationship with God today as if obedience today is not needed because of some outward act you did yesterday, or last month or 10 years ago.

Jesus' statement about those who use praise, flowery speech while disregarding His Word

Mark 7:7-13
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’

8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

SabbathBlessings said:

Legalism is actually depending on our works instead of depending on God's Exo 32:16 Psa 78:7 depending on our own righteousness instead of depending on God's Psa 119:172 depending on our sanctification Isa 66:17 instead of God's Eze 20:12 John 17:17 not being connected to the Vine and abiding in Him John 15:4-10 1 John 2:6 1 John 3:24

Click to expand...

I agree with everything above, but would like to put my spin on it.

"Salvation" is not "admission to heaven". It is instead being in harmony with God's plans which will naturally keep us away from harm.
Actions matter. If I steal from my neighbor, that is going to cause problems.
In my current state, I am incapable of doing all the right things. I am 100% dependent on God leading me in the correct path.

So God's intervention --> changes my actions --> avoid problems / "saved" from harm.

KT