Legalism Is Baffling

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

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".

When the Israelites told Moses that they would hear and do everything God commanded them, God responded this way: "Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever!" (Dt 5:29) He knew they were incapable of fulfilling their promise.

Enter the promise of a new covenant: "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts..." (Je 31:33)

And it's fulfilment in Christ:

14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.​

15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,​

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them, 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. (Heb 10:14–18)​

When He put those laws in our hearts and wrote them in our minds, He also remitted our sins. So how can you say to follow the Torah or suffer the consequences?

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

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.

The law paints a target which must be hit without fail in order for success to be declared. The law itself says this, and so does the NT's analysis of the law. That is why Scripture declares, "Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Ro 3:20)

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

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.

Yes, the negative personal impact of legalism is what started the thread. Frankly, I am surprised at the respose. Given its weighty negative personal impact, I did not expect anyone to step forward and defend legalism.

I think someone I'm ignoring asked for a definition of legalism. To me, this passage perfectly defines legalism:

14 “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.​

17 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.” (Ga 2:14–21)​

There is a positive side (what we cling to) and a negative side (what we reject) in our opposition to legalism. We cling to the concept that justification (the thing that causes us to be in a right relationship with God) is by faith in Jesus Christ. We reject the concept that obedience to the law is the thing that that causes us to be in a right relationship with God. These positives and negatives are stated many times in these verses. And the final verse tells us when and how a person develops a legalistic point of view -- when he sets aside the grace of God in favor of obedience to the law. This is truly baffling because it should be obvious that if righteousness (having a right relationship with God) comes through obedience to the law, then there would have been no need for Christ to die for our sins.

 

[fhansen]

Maybe you can explain how the second group can be sanctified and sinners at the same time.

I don't need to; the RCC rejects the concept of simul iustus et peccator-that's a Lutheran doctrine, for one. In Catholicism, sin is dealt with, understood to still be deadly while Jesus gives us the power to overcome it now. Not overcome it perfectly in this life, just as we won't be perfected in love in this life (sin and love being mutually exclusive), and yet solidly on that path towards holiness, towards perfection, with Himself and the ever-present aid of His grace. If we slide back to the deeds of the flesh outlined in Gal 5 and Rev 21, as examples, we've already shown our lack of love for God and neighbor; we've already compromised our relationship with Him to the extent that we persist in such sin.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

I don't need to; the RCC rejects the concept of simul iustus et peccator-that's a Lutheran doctrine, for one. In Catholicism, sin is dealt with, understood to still be deadly while Jesus gives us the power to overcome it now. Not overcome it perfectly in this life, just as we won't be perfected in love in this life (sin and love being mutually exclusive), and yet solidly on that path towards holiness, towards perfection, with Himself and the ever-present aid of His grace. If we slide back to the deeds of the flesh outlined in Gal 5 and Rev 21, as examples, we've already shown our lack of love for God and neighbor; we've already compromised our relationship with Him to the extent that we persist in such sin.

Sadly, it is not unusual for Christians to add obedience to the law (the law of love in your case) to the gospel. It is ironic, however, that they all hang on to just enough grace (i.e., forgiveness of sins through the sacrifice of Christ) so that their own failures to obey the law are not counted against them. But other sinners, who are much worse sinners than themselves, must pay for their sins because grace doesn't extend that far.

 

[fhansen]

Sadly, it is not unusual for Christians to add obedience to the law (the law of love in your case) to the gospel. It is ironic, however, that they all hang on to just enough grace (i.e., forgiveness of sins through the sacrifice of Christ) so that their own failures to obey the law are not counted against them. But other sinners, who are much worse sinners than themselves, must pay for their sins because grace doesn't extend that far.

Add obedience to the law? What does that mean? The law is already all about obedience. But the gospel speaks of an obedience-a righteousness- apart from the law. Only satan would smile at the novel rumor that Christians don't need to be obedient to God-that's the way we already were, before believing, after all! But believing is a turning away from sin and to God. John understood:

"Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister." 1 John 3:7-10

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Add obedience to the law? What does that mean? The law is already all about obedience.

It is obvious that I meant adding "obedience to the law" to "the gospel". Everyone knows the law demands obedience.

But the gospel speaks of an obedience-a righteousness- apart from the law.

Nope, it speaks about righteousness through faith in Christ apart from obedience to the law. It's a righteousness that obedience to the law can't create. That's why Jesus had to die for our sins.

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. (Ro 3:28)​

Only satan would smile at the novel rumor that Christians don't need to be obedient to God-that's the way we already were, before believing, after all! But believing is a turning away from sin and to God.

That is a completely fleshly view of grace. When, according to Gal 5:1, we stand fast in the liberty by which Christ has made us free (for we are not under law, but under grace), we not only need to resist those who want us to place ourselves under the law (Gal 5:7-8), we also must resist the flesh and not use our liberty as an opportunity to endulge it (Gal 5:13).

John understood:

"Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister." 1 John 3:7-10

As I have said, and as you have rejected, these verses are talking about the new creation that came into being when Jesus came to live in our hearts. The new man was "created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph 4:24). That new person is righteous and doesn't sin.

But your position is again relativistic because everyone sins, even the most religious people. You tell me, how much sin is tolerated for a person to still be considered righteous, just as Jesus is righteous? How many times a week can a person sin and not be considered as being "of the devil"? What sin count or type of sin or frequency of sin constitutes "going on sinning" and indicates they are not "born of God"? How often can a person "not do what is right" or fail to "love their brother" and still be considered God's child? If this isn't black and white, what shades of gray are light enough?

 

[fhansen]

Nope, it speaks about righteousness through faith in Christ apart from obedience to the law. It's a righteousness that obedience to the law can't create. That's why Jesus had to die for our sins.

Um...that's what I said.

That is a completely fleshly view of grace. When, according to Gal 5:1, we stand fast in the liberty by which Christ has made us free (for we are not under law, but under grace), we not only need to resist those who want us to place ourselves under the law (Gal 5:7-8), we also must resist the flesh and not use our liberty as an opportunity to endulge it (Gal 5:13).

Alright, and to indulge the flesh is to break the law, to sin. Grace is both a gift and a choice, to participate in and cooperate with that gift, every day. It's the life of God in us, and to the extent that we're free from sin, we show that He's in us and we in Him.

As I have said, and as you have rejected, these verses are talking about the new creation that came into being when Jesus came to live in our hearts. The new man was "created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph 4:24). That new person is righteous and doesn't sin.

But your position is again relativistic because everyone sins, even the most religious people. You tell me, how much sin is tolerated for a person to still be considered righteous, just as Jesus is righteous? How many times a week can a person sin and not be considered as being "of the devil"? What sin count or type of sin or frequency of sin constitutes "going on sinning" and indicates they are not "born of God"? How often can a person "not do what is right" or fail to "love their brother" and still be considered God's child? If this isn't black and white, what shades of gray are light enough?

As John says, "The one who does what is right is righteous," He's not talking about some pretend righteousness, as if that does anyone or any of God's creation any good. He's talking about real righteousness given to us by God, but righteousness that we can turn away from, spurning God's grace.

And this is why the church distinguishes between types and gravity of sin. Some sin is so intrinsically opposed to love of God and neighbor that it leads to death (1 John 5); it separates us from God all over again. Lesser sins tend towards that separation, but do not constitute a complete turning away from goodness, from God. That's a direct and honest enough way to approach and understand it. So I can turn the question around. Does it matter if a born again person sins? And, if not, does this mean that any degree or seriousness of sin is allowable? Or at what point do we say that either that person has lost his status as a child of God, or that he never really was one to begin with?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

When He put those laws in our hearts and wrote them in our minds, He also remitted our sins. So how can you say to follow the Torah or suffer the consequences?

Because at least the civil laws still matter, you just have to translate it into a modern context. For example, There’s one states, you shal not keep two sets of measuring weights or two sets of weighing scales (Deut. 25:13-16), this is obviously about cheating in business. Just because we don’t use those ancient weights and scales anymore doesn’t mean we’re free to cheat in business. If we cheat in business by cutting corners or giving false report, it will be noticed, and our days in business will be cut short, does it qualify as a consequence? This is about principles, a code of conduct, and it will benefit ourselves and our neighbors.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

The law paints a target which must be hit without fail in order for success to be declared. The law itself says this, and so does the NT's analysis of the law. That is why Scripture declares, "Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Ro 3:20)

Yeah, and guess what, "sin" in hebrew originally means "missing the target."

 

[trophy33]

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

Binding as a legal code. This is put away. Moral principles are valid independently on the covenant. For example "do not murder" is valid always, no matter if the Mosaic Law ended or not.

 

[trophy33]

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.

No.

"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law...
So the law was our guardian until Christ came...
Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
Gal 3:23-25

"But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way
of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."
R 7:6

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.

No, again:

"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law...
So the law was our guardian until Christ came...
Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
Gal 3:23-25

"But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way
of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."
R 7:6

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.

Unnecessary speculation. We know what Paul preached - that Jesus is Christ. This is what Bereans verified in the Old Testament and we have no reason to go behind that.

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.

No, again.

"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law...
So the law was our guardian until Christ came...
Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
Gal 3:23-25

"But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way
of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."
R 7:6

The Mosaic Law was temporary - since Moses to Christ.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Binding as a legal code. This is put away. Moral principles are valid independently on the covenant. For example "do not murder" is valid always, no matter if the Mosaic Law ended or not.

"Love" is THE most abused word in English language, it could ranges from "I love chocolate ice cream with all my taste buds" to "I love the Lord with all my heart". A common understanding of "love" is selflessness, that you think about others before yourself, you put others' needs before your own, that's a universal sign of maturity.

 

[trophy33]

"Love" is THE most abused word in English language, it could ranges from "I love chocolate ice cream with all my taste buds" to "I love the Lord with all my heart". A common understanding of "love" is selflessness, that you think about others before yourself, you put others' needs before your own, that's a universal sign of maturity.

Ok, how does this follow my post, though?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Ok, how does this follow my post, though?

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is NOT a legal code, neither should we read it as one. I said this many times that the word "Torah" primarily means instruction or teaching, it's meant to guide you, not to bind you.

 

[trophy33]

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is NOT a legal code, neither should we read it as one. I said this many times that the word "Torah" primarily means instruction or teaching, it's meant to guide you, not to bind you.

My post does not say that "love your neighbor as yourself" is a legal code. The Mosaic Law was a legal code.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

My post does not say that "love your neighbor as yourself" is a legal code. The Mosaic Law was a legal code.

The Mosaic law is a guideline as well, not strict legal code that must be followed to the letter. One example is about the public stoning of a rebellious child (Deut. 21:18-21), modern readers find it abhorrent and primitive, but the underlying purpose is to deter "honor killing" of a child who's condemned by family members as "rebellious" for minor offenses, a barbaric costum which is still common in many muslim communities. Instead of "honor killing" in secret, they must file charges, build a case, bring it to a civil court, have the child publicly tried and let the judge decide. And then, if, and ONLY IF the child is found guilty with at least two witnesses and other necessary evidence, could he or she be convicted and executed, that requirement was practically impossible to meet. Just take the case of the adulterous woman in John 8 for example, even though the woman was truly guilty (go and sin no more), Jesus essentially dismissed it as a mistrial because it doesn't meet the requirements.

In a western context, where such a child is really a little devil with no respect to parental authority and the rule of law, when they get themselves in serious trouble, parents are prohibited to shelter them or settle it in private, instead they must turn them in to authority, and again, let the authority handle it. This is pretty relevant today if you understand it in this way.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

I don't need to; the RCC rejects the concept of simul iustus et peccator-that's a Lutheran doctrine, for one. In Catholicism, sin is dealt with, understood to still be deadly while Jesus gives us the power to overcome it now. Not overcome it perfectly in this life, just as we won't be perfected in love in this life (sin and love being mutually exclusive), and yet solidly on that path towards holiness, towards perfection, with Himself and the ever-present aid of His grace.

May I recommend the following observations as a parallel study aid to the discussion ensuing upon post 124 (and I've heard that Latin phrase, in English, a great deal in the RCC, new apostolics, everywhere).

Due to indistinct teachings on Holy Spirit everywhere, what denomination heads claim to believe or that their adherents believe, what the average clergy person or nun says, and what ordinary people say amongst themselves or to themselves, can all differ, without being explicit on how.

Catholic and protestant "confessions" / catechisms alike are somewhat indistinct around the subject of Ascension.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

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)

I'm not an expert except in that I've sat and puzzled it out in a cold sweat.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

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.

My remark was about quality of application and you are objecting to my affirming its authority when you say it has none for me.

The meaning of the law (meant by our Lord) is valid for all believers. You are applying the law literally to yourself (and us by proxy) while saying that gentiles are to ignore its meanings.

It's worthwhile slowing down the rate of rejoinders each night, and not circling superficially. B Griffin (it seems to me) and I are trying to invite you to not pretend to disagree, but to talk about the existential impact.

I think legalism puts down the young and prevents them believing in prayer. Have you seen this happening in the lives of your children or the children of your friends?

Do churches you've been to have indistinct teachings on Ascension?

Had you noticed that materialism negates application?

Are there portions in Scripture explicitly commenting on the quality of the "revival" in Josiah's time?

Does the law not say "collect for him who has none"? Does that include your friends' children? Are they meaningful individuals? Who else says that?

Is legalism a spirit that is against spirit? Is it calculated to discredit the very content God gave (which you should be cautious of joining in)?