Legalism Is Baffling

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Some people have a legalism that they are not allowed to supplicate for the world.

Can you elaborate on this? I don't know what you're saying.

 

[fhansen]

You're the one who knows them, not me. So I can't vouch for what they know or don't know.

Yes, at the Reformation many pretty much threw history out the door, replacing it with their private interpretations of Scripture which often disagreed with the next guy's private interpretation of Scripture on relevant points.

No. We are still descendants of of Adam, having inherited his corrupt nature. But through spiritual birth we became partakers of the divine nature. When we die, the human nature will cease to exist, and the divine nature will be further clothed. It is then that we will be completely without sin, and we will see Him as He is.

Ok, so believers continue to sin. Does it matter how grievous or serious the sin might be? Can liars, sexual idolators, murderers and thieves most likely enter heaven as long as they're believers?

John was talking about the spirit of a person that came into existance when God gave birth to him by his Spirit. You do know that being a child of God is literal, right?

Of course-I also know that a person can leave the family; they can die again just as Adam did originally.

Yes, it is a feature of our divine nature that will survive our physical death. (Eph 4:24)

So....we need to be holy but believers still sin. Which is it? "Simul iustus et peccator" is a fallacy as far as the church has ever been concerned.

No, eternal life is a free gift of God: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Ro 6:23) NASB

Yes! But the free gift is always associated with the free gift of righteousness, which we must continue to walk in, now partnered with God.. To the extent that we sin we're not walking with Him; we're not one of His until and unless we repent and return all over again. Read all of Rom 6 to see that we must be slaves of righteousness now as we've been freed from sin, not just the consequences of sin, but from sin, and its slavery, and therefore from its consequences.

"I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Rom 6:19-22

As I said before, love is a fruit of the Spirit. Love does not ingratiate us to God. It is a by-product of walking in the Spirit.

Love is the mark of a true believer. It is the holiness, the justice, the motivator of the good works without which we won't be seeing Him.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Can you elaborate on this? I don't know what you're saying.

Daniel repented by proxy for the failings of his forebears and betters. He is a good example and he believed the same as the prophets believed about high handed religion.

Legalists out of bad conscience think their religion is above questioning. Meantime it has misled millions of people emotionally as well as intellectually, not only in their movement but other movements, and outside the churches as well as inside.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

It is truly baffling when Christians set aside the grace of God and place themselves under the law.

Torah, the word commonly translated as "law", primarily means INSTRUCTION or TEACHING. If you want to live as the creator of the universe wants you to live, follow the Torah. If you don't, you'll suffer consequences, like you'll get burned if you play with fire. To get any project done, as simple as cooking a meal, you have to do it in certain way, following the recipe is not "under the law". And if you have cooked this meal many times, you'd have internalized the recipe and be able to cook it effortlessly without anybody asking you to, you'd even automatically go to the kitchen and cook the meal just for some stress relief, at least that's what I do, that's how the "law" is "written in your heart".

 

[OldAbramBrown]

By the Spirit we keep the spirit of the law. It's common sense which provisions apply and which don't.

 

[trophy33]

The NT contains about 60 references to Deuteronomy with 44 direct quotes, so it treats Deuteronomy as being an authoritative source. Jesus also set a sinless example of how to obey Deuteronomy. The Books of Moses are considered authoritative by Jews, so don't see room for thinking that the NT authors agreed with some parts of Deuteronomy while disagreeing with others.

As a whole, its not authoritative source for Christians, after Christ. Some moral principles can continue in the new covenant, but most of the instructions were just for ancient Israel.

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers how to live in obedience to the Mosaic Law

No, He spent His ministry preaching about the coming judgement over Israel, about the coming kingdom of God, healing etc.

If Paul had been speaking against obeying the Mosaic Law, then the Bereans would have rejected what he taught

Pure speculation. Paul preached Christ crucified, so its the simplest logic to expect that Bereans checked what the OT says about Christ.

Someone who disregarded everything their tutor taught them after they left would be missing the whole point of a tutor.

1. The tutor was given just to ancient Israel, not to us, anyway. Gentile nations had different tutors.
2. The tutor is not disregarded in everything, many moral principles are the same in the kingdom of God. As a legal code its put away, though.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

As a whole, its not authoritative source for Christians, after Christ. Some moral principles can continue in the new covenant, but most of the instructions were just for ancient Israel.

No, He spent His ministry preaching about the coming judgement over Israel, about the coming kingdom of God, healing etc.


Pure speculation. Paul preached Christ crucified, so its the simplest logic to expect Bereans checked what the OT says about Christ.



1. The tutor was given just to ancient Israel, not to us, anyway. Gentile nations had different tutors.
2. The tutor is not disregarded in everything, many moral principles are the same in the kingdom of God. As a legal code its put away, though.

This is not about whom the law is for, but what kind of person the law is for. Christians are under grace because Christians are trusted by God. A trustworthy, disciplined person is under grace, law is their inner guidance and code of conduct, not restriction and bondage; an untrustworthy, undisciplined person is under law, they have no inner guidance and no code of conduct, they prefer slavery to freedom, therefore they are put under restriction and bondage. If we betray our God given trust and abuse our God given freedom, then we would effectively put ourselves under the law, that's the only logical consequence. There's a whole chapter about blessing for obedience and curses for disobedience in Deut. 28, the children of Israel was initially under grace and set free from Egypt, but by their disobedience they were cursed into exile and bondage. Christians are not treated differently. We could be fallen into the bondage of debt, porn, sugar, drug, cult or any other idol.

 

[trophy33]

This is not about whom the law is for, but what kind of person the law is for. Christians are under grace because Christians are trusted by God. A trustworthy, disciplined person is under grace, law is their inner guidance and code of conduct, not restriction and bondage; an untrustworthy, undisciplined person is under law, they have no inner guidance and no code of conduct, they prefer slavery to freedom, therefore they are put under restriction and bondage. If we betray our God given trust and abuse our God given freedom, then we would effectively put ourselves under the law, that's the only logical consequence. There's a whole chapter about blessing for obedience and curses for disobedience in Deut. 28, the children of Israel was initially under grace and set free from Egypt, but by their disobedience they were cursed into exile and bondage. Christians are not treated differently. We could be fallen into the bondage of debt, inappropriate content, sugar, drug, cult or any other idol.

I am not sure about your point, but it seems its just another way of saying its not for us. Regarding Gentiles, the law has never been for them, regarding Jews, the law was for them till Christ.

Law meaning the Mosaic Law as written in the Old testament. All nations have moral law.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I am not sure about your point, but it seems its just another way of saying its not for us. Regarding Gentiles, the law has never been for them, regarding Jews, the law was for them till Christ.

Law meaning the Mosaic Law as written in the Old testament. All nations have moral law.

What I'm saying is that God is no respector of person, there's no Jews or Gentiles, only saints and ain'ts. Paul wrote in Romans that God doesn't prefer Jews over Gentiles, neither does he prefer Gentiles over Jews.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I am not sure about your point, but it seems its just another way of saying its not for us. Regarding Gentiles, the law has never been for them, regarding Jews, the law was for them till Christ.

Law meaning the Mosaic Law as written in the Old testament. All nations have moral law.

And my point, simply put, is the negative correlation between trust and rule. The more you trust a person, the more freedom you'd trust them with, and the less rules you'd make for them; the less you trust a person, the less freedom you'd trust them with, and the more rules you'd make for them. Same as grace and law.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

As a whole, its not authoritative source for Christians, after Christ. Some moral principles can continue in the new covenant, but most of the instructions were just for ancient Israel.

The letter to Hebrews explains why Deuteronomy is authoritative because it's common sense which details apply in practice. Deuteronomy had a spiritual meaning all along. Why does God through Jeremiah lament its misapplication by the high handed elites from the time of Josiah onwards?

 

[trophy33]

The letter to Hebrews explains why Deuteronomy is authoritative because it's common sense which details apply in practice. Deuteronomy had a spiritual meaning all along. Why does God through Jeremiah lament its misapplication by the high handed elites from the time of Josiah onwards?

Not sure what in Hebrews you are talking about.

Regarding your opinion that "its common sense which details apply", its against the Law of Moses. The law is either valid with every detail or put away as a whole. Nothing between is possible:

Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
Dt 4:2

See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.
Dt 12:32

Teaching "the authority of the book of Deuteronomy still continues, but not in every detail" is explicitly forbidden and against the book of Deuteronomy.

 

[trophy33]

What I'm saying is that God is no respector of person, there's no Jews or Gentiles, only saints and ain'ts. Paul wrote in Romans that God doesn't prefer Jews over Gentiles, neither does he prefer Gentiles over Jews.

And my point, simply put, is the negative correlation between trust and rule. The more you trust a person, the more freedom you'd trust them with, and the less rules you'd make for them; the less you trust a person, the less freedom you'd trust them with, and the more rules you'd make for them. Same as grace and law.

Yes, in the kingdom of God, nobody is preferred. Before the kingdom of God came, there was a difference between Israel, who got the Mosaic law as a tutor, and other nations that were prepared for the gospel in different ways.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Yes, in the kingdom of God, nobody is preferred. Before the kingdom of God came, there was a difference between Israel, who got the Mosaic law as a tutor, and other nations that were prepared for the gospel in different ways.

Surely you must admit the meaning of the law is valuable to christians, not as a telling off but to hold out the prospect that we can act justly towards each other. Drinking from the Rock which is Christ and eating spiritual food in the desert offered the Israelites what they needed; Moses wanted more people to have the Holy Spirit. Starting with a clan and a group of tribes is what gave God the springboard to show Revelation to everybody (He's practical like that).

Why then do dominionists and superapostles - who deliberately discredit Holy Scripture and Holy Spirit - upset minds and hearts inside and outside the churches? Why does that cause temperaments to become compulsive in both senses? If legalism is baffling isn't that because it blights men, women and children everywhere? Proper theology is truth because it is justice. Legalism denies Holy Spirit; that's why the law can be fulfilled.

Jesus said no different than the prophets did about all of us being likewise invited to be grafted in. There wasn't a real difference: it was very superficial indeed. The religious authorities' snootiness was never justified from Josiah's time, the Herods' time, reformation times, and now.

If you use superficial logic we need to know what you mean by it? What have you seen with your own eyes and known in your own heart?

 

[trophy33]

Surely you must admit the meaning of the law is valuable to christians,

It is valuable, but not binding. We have a different path after Christ.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

... Please, stick to the topic - legalism in the church in Galatia.

And Corinth and where I am and where you are (why we can learn from Scripture).

 

[OldAbramBrown]

It is valuable, but not binding. We have a different path after Christ.

Depends what you mean by "binding". Jesus' hearers knew "love your neighbour as yourself" was nothing new.

Common sense showed backward children in the 1960s (in England) how to apply OT details, because there was belief in Holy Spirit then. How different is caring since Christ versus before Christ?

The point of B Griffin's thread is the personal impact of the issue.

 

[Soyeong]

As a whole, its not authoritative source for Christians, after Christ. Some moral principles can continue in the new covenant, but most of the instructions were just for ancient Israel.

In Jeremiah 31:31-33, the New Covenant was only made with the house of Judah and the house of Israel and it still involves following the Mosaic Law. This instruct were given to Israel so that Israel cold be equipped for the role of being a light and a blessing to the nations by teaching them to obey them in accordance with spreading the Gospel.

No, He spent His ministry preaching about the coming judgement over Israel, about the coming kingdom of God, healing etc.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the nations, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message. Furthermore, Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), so he spent his ministry teaching his people to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example.

Pure speculation. Paul preached Christ crucified, so its the simplest logic to expect that Bereans checked what the OT says about Christ.

Regardless of what Paul happened to tell the Bereans, he should not be interpreted as saying anything to them that they would have flat out rejected in accordance with Scripture. Teaching against obeying the Mosaic Law is an example of something that if Paul had done, then the Bereans would have rejected, and we should reject for the same reason.

1. The tutor was given just to ancient Israel, not to us, anyway. Gentile nations had different tutors.
2. The tutor is not disregarded in everything, many moral principles are the same in the kingdom of God. As a legal code its put away, though.

All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160). Instructions for how to testify about God's nature can't be abolished without first abolishing God.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Yes, at the Reformation many pretty much threw history out the door, replacing it with their private interpretations of Scripture which often disagreed with the next guy's private interpretation of Scripture on relevant points.

Ok, so believers continue to sin. Does it matter how grievous or serious the sin might be? Can liars, sexual idolators, murderers and thieves most likely enter heaven as long as they're believers?

Of course-I also know that a person can leave the family; they can die again just as Adam did originally.

So....we need to be holy but believers still sin. Which is it? "Simul iustus et peccator" is a fallacy as far as the church has ever been concerned.

Yes! But the free gift is always associated with the free gift of righteousness, which we must continue to walk in, now partnered with God.. To the extent that we sin we're not walking with Him; we're not one of His until and unless we repent and return all over again. Read all of Rom 6 to see that we must be slaves of righteousness now as we've been freed from sin, not just the consequences of sin, but from sin, and its slavery, and therefore from its consequences.

"I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Rom 6:19-22

Love is the mark of a true believer. It is the holiness, the justice, the motivator of the good works without which we won't be seeing Him.

I had to look up the Latin phrase you quoted which as far as I can tell means "a Christian is at the same time both righteous and a sinner". I do not believe that. I believe that Christians escape their union with the flesh and are united with God through being born of God. This is how we were set free from sin and became slaves of God. We do drag around Adam's legacy of sin, but Christ set us free so that we may serve in the newness of the Spirit instead of the oldness of the letter.

I'm not an RCC expert, but according to the internet, even the RCC admits Christians are sinners. It even goes so far as to separate mortal sins, grave sins, and venial sins. Only the mortal sins, i.e., the grave sins sins that are "committed with complete awareness of its gravity and in full agreement with the sinner" cut the sinner off from God's sanctifying grace until they go to confession with a priest. The other sinners are not cut off from God's sanctifying grace. Maybe you can explain how the second group can be sanctified and sinners at the same time.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Daniel repented by proxy for the failings of his forebears and betters. He is a good example and he believed the same as the prophets believed about high handed religion.

Legalists out of bad conscience think their religion is above questioning. Meantime it has misled millions of people emotionally as well as intellectually, not only in their movement but other movements, and outside the churches as well as inside.

Ok, Thanks. I'm not an expert on all that, but I agree we have landed in a bad spot as concerns legalism. As Paul warned the Galatians, "A little leaven leavens the whole lump." (Ga 5:9)