Legalism Is Baffling

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Um...that's what I said.


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 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.

All sin is unrighteousness. And sin comes from the heart. Even a little sin betrays an evil heart. There's no getting around that.

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?

I already ansewered the question on two occasions when I said that John was talking about the new man who was "created according to God in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph 4:24) when God birthed us into His kingdom by His Spirit. At no point does sin proceed out of the new man, because "His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God" (1 Jn 3:9).

We shouldn't focus our attention on the hypothetical person who is so repulsive in their sins that it is impossible to consider him to ever have been a Chisitian. We should focus on our own selves and make sure we pass the test. That's why I ask about the "little" sins. I assume my CF buddies are not serial killers.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

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.

I agree with you on that narrow point. But the law is not our guide. If we walk in the Spirit, we will grow the fruit of the Spirit (partial list in Galatians 5). Laws don't rule for or against that.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

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

Very interesting. If I ever knew that, then I have forgotten. Thanks.

 

[lanceleo]

I agree with you on that narrow point. But the law is not our guide. If we walk in the Spirit, we will grow the fruit of the Spirit (partial list in Galatians 5). Laws don't rule for or against that.

The law guides us but it's not the road that drives us. We are not under the Law as the method of salvation, but we delight to see the Law in the hand of Christ and desire to obey the Lord in all things. The Law of God must be perpetual. There is no abrogation of it, nor amendment of it.

 

[Soyeong]

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


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


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.


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.

Do you believe that Galatians 3:23-25 and Romans 7:6 contradict all of the verses that I cited? If so, how do you think that you should follow Galatians 3:23-25 and Romans 7:6 instead of the verses that I cited? I believe that all of the Bible is true, so I don't interpret any verses in a manner that contradicts another verse. I also consider Paul to be a servant of God, so I don't interpret him as teaching us to rebel against what He has commanded.

In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the law leads us to Christ because it teaches us how to know him, but does not lead us to Christ so that we can reject everything he taught and go back to living in sin. A student does not move on to algebra by disregarding what they were taught about addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, but rather their new teacher builds upon what they were previously taught.

In Galatians 3:16-19, a newer covenant does not nullify the promise of an older covenant that has already been ratified, but doing away with God's law would nullify the promise in connection with it. Furthermore, in Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of being children of God (1), through faith (2), in Christ (3), and children of Abraham and hears of the promise (4) is directly connected with living in obedience to the Mosaic Law. In 1 John 3:10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to the Mosaic Law are not children of God (1). In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Mosaic Law (2). In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (3). In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works that he did (4).

In Romans 7:22-23, Paul delighted in obeying the Mosaic Law, but contrasted that with the law of sin that held him captive. In Romans 7:5-6, it describes as as being released from a law that held us captive, so it would be absurd to interpret that as referring to the Mosaic Law as through Paul delighted in being held captive or as if he delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive.

 

[fhansen]

We shouldn't focus our attention on the hypothetical person who is so repulsive in their sins that it is impossible to consider him to ever have been a Chisitian. We should focus on our own selves and make sure we pass the test. That's why I ask about the "little" sins. I assume my CF buddies are not serial killers.

But that's just avoiding the question. If there's a new man to put on that implies a choice. John means what he says; he's not speaking of some ethereal second person, but about what we actually end up doing. The bible lists many of the kinds of sins that we are to avoid and enjoins us not to go there, with eternal life at stake, so the possibility must exist and the reality of believers participating in such sins has been played out down through the centuries-and the church has had to deal with it.

Either way, yes, we must focus on ourselves to see if we pass the test-because sin can separate us from God all over again. "Sin that leads to death" means that we've separated ourselves from Him all over again.. He's not asking for perfect sinlessness in this life although that's certainly the ideal at the end of the day (no one was created to be a sinner after all). He's asking that we get on and remain on that path, towards the perfection we were created for, with Him.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

But ... Him.

I think you are both saying the same thing here. It's a matter of diligence with assurance (churches have abolished the doctrine of assurance which is intended to stem from distinct teachings on Holy Spirit.

 

[fhansen]

I think you are both saying the same thing here. It's a matter of diligence with assurance (churches have abolished the doctrine of assurance which is intended to stem from distinct teachings on Holy Spirit.

The churches originally taught no such thing as absolute assurance of salvation. That pretty much came along with the doctrine of Sola
Fide, which introduced the idea that a person need not be righteous in fact -but only declared to be righteous- in order to enter heaven.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

The churches originally taught no such thing as absolute assurance of salvation. That pretty much came along with the doctrine of Sola
Fide, which introduced the idea that a person need not be righteous in fact -but only declared to be righteous- in order to enter heaven.

I wasn't aware of "absolute"; ordinary and normal seemed to be more the flavour. We knew God had given new birth and it was up to us to avail of Holy Spirit help in diligence.

We hadn't yet succumbed to the universal subsequent protestant and catholic propaganda that we are still in peril because Holy Spirit help isn't there, which after that leads to not caring either way anyway. (That's the functional status, even from churches which give lip service to Holy Spirit.)

 

[fhansen]

I wasn't aware of "absolute"; ordinary and normal seemed to be more the flavour. We knew God had given new birth and it was up to us to avail of Holy Spirit help in diligence.

It has to do with the degree of certainty one has about salvation. God is 100% trustworthy and true, while man is the wildcard. We can have a healthy sense that were saved, based on His promises coupled with the observance of fruit in our lives. But at the end of the day God, alone, knows with perfect certainty whose names are written in the Book of Life and whose are not, who will persevere and who will not.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

It has to do with the degree of certainty one has about salvation. God is 100% trustworthy and true, while man is the wildcard. We can have a healthy sense that were saved, based on His promises coupled with the observance of fruit in our lives. But at the end of the day God, alone, knows with perfect certainty whose names are written in the Book of Life and whose are not, who will persevere and who will not.

Yes your middle sentence here encapsulates all the core of the faith that many people had in my young day and which secular agnostics seemed content for us about it.

I'm not saying it about you but some would speak your last sentence in the sense of wanting us to despair (because they are in despair) (I've met lots of those in lots of denominations, some cloak it in excitement or mystique). So man plus Holy Spirit indwelling and infilling is meant to be less of a wildcard provided we couple our assurance with diligence and personal discretion (diligence).

Many churches are teaching that subsequent works have to be totally in the flesh and might not avail anyway so "faith" is hardly belief any more.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

ref my 151 end of last para but one:

... discretion (integrity).

 

[OldAbramBrown]

End stage evangelicalism: "grace" is solely to limit God's fictional nastiness.
Truth: Grace is to endow power for living well in contingency. Gifts of wisdom and knowledge (shared intuitions about applying Scriptures).

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Very interesting. If I ever knew that, then I have forgotten. Thanks.

Yeah, you're welcome. And "missing the target" is not really about poor marksmanship. In the ancient nomadic culture, this is about straying from the path and thus missing the destination and getting lost in the wilderness. You're supposed to go somewhere, but you fail to follow the direction and wander off to other places, either intentionally or being distracted or misguided. Sound familiar?

 

[trophy33]

The Mosaic law is a guideline as well, not strict legal code that must be followed to the letter.

Hardly.

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Mt 5:18

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
Jm 2:10

 

[trophy33]

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.

You are vague and I do not know what you want to say.

I do not create my posts at night, I live in a different time zone, its day for me.

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)?

Only the first question makes sense to me - No, I do not have children, nor my friends.

 

[trophy33]

Do you believe that Galatians 3:23-25 and Romans 7:6 contradict all of the verses that I cited?

They contradict your application/interpretation of the verses you cited.

 

[Soyeong]

They contradict your application/interpretation of the verses you cited.

Then please discuss the verses that I cited to explain how you think that they should be correctly interpreted.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Hardly.

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Mt 5:18

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
Jm 2:10

It is written, "Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law by observing them." (Deut. 27:26) No one can keep up with all the laws, we're all "guilty of breaking all of it". But for those who believe in Jesus, He took OUR curses upon HIS shoulders; for those who do NOT believe in him, their curses are still on themselves (John 3:18). Those who try to keep the law without Jesus is under a curse.

The next chapter listed a long list of horrifying curses in gory detail (Deut. 28:15-68), which were observed in ancient Israel and many other countries, but you know what, casting into the Lake of Fire is not among them, all of them are particular curses in THIS life, not the next! Also, "salvation for eternal life" is not listed among the blessings either, they're all about material prosperity or military victory. The blessings we enjoy for keeping the law and the curses we suffer for breaking the law are all in this life, not the next.

 

[trophy33]

Then please discuss the verses that I cited to explain how you think that they should be correctly interpreted.

Thats the job of inspired apostles and they already wrote down the basics - the law was given to Israel and till Christ.

Its not my job to interpret all OT verses you come with. But if your interpretations are against the teachings of the New Testament, we can conclude they are not Christian.