Free to Live

Authentic Christianity can only be realized through Christ, by means of His Spirit and His Word, as faith is exercised. There is nothing to add. If you do, you have another gospel. Having rules and standards does not make a person a legalist, but making rule keeping as a means or a measure of spirituality does. That is the point.

Matthew Olson expands on his blogpost from last week with an explanation of what it means to be “Free To Live”.

For discussion on Olson’s post “The Attraction to Legalism”, see this thread.

Discussion

So more rule keeping is a means of more spirituality?

Steve, what do you think it means to “discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness”?

[Steve Davis]… Aaron’s first comment that “rule keeping is​ a means of spirituality” is puzzling. Perhaps I am missing something. So more rule keeping is a means of more spirituality?

In my first post I offered three clarifications of what I am not saying. Your question inspires a fourth.

So, to clarify, I’m not saying:

  • All rules are means of spirituality
  • Rule-keeping by itself is a means of spirituality
  • Rule-keeping is a substitute for genuine love and faith.
  • Increased quantity of rules results in increased spiritiuality.

It doesn’t follow that if rulekeeping is a means of spirituality then more rules is necessarily better. To a point that would be true. If the argument is valid that applying Scripture requires rulemaking, and applying Scripture is a means of godly living (I prefer this term to the extremely vague ‘spirituality’) then the more we apply Scripture, the more rules we’ll have—to a point.

I say “to a point” for a couple of reasons. I’ve got to run so I’ll have to summarize. Reason one: after a while, an application of Scripture that we made consciously and imposed as a discipline, becomes part of the fabric of who we are. We don’t even think about it anymore. It’s doubtful that these are “rules” anymore. Just part of our character. Second: even though applying Scripture results in some rules, not all rules are good and wise applications of Scripture. So the more rules we have the more bad rules we have also. That doesn’t make it not worth doing. The same is true of, say, preaching: the more we preach the more error we proclaim mixed in with the truth. Hopefully the ratio is a really good one! But the presence of error in my pulpit work doesn’t make the activity worthless or harmful on the whole. Likewise, the fact that some rules are stupid and wrong doesn’t make it true that “rules are not a means of spirituality.”

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Aaron Blumer] “Are there any ‘rules’ (I’m not referring to spiritual principles or commands like Romans 12:1-2) that you take straight from the pages of the NT?”

Lot’s of them. A few examples:

  • Lie not to one another (Col. 3:9)
  • Don’t steal (Eph. 4:28)
  • Don’t sue your brother (2Cor.6:1)

But I’m not sure what that proves one way or the other. The specific claim I’m making is not that all rules are good rules or that rules alone are transformative but that we should not dismiss rules as a means of spiritual growth/godly living.

Aaron-

You’ve proved my point by using ‘rules’ and ‘principles/commands’ in the same way. That’s why people like Steve and I disagree with you. Blanket commands (of the kind you quoted above in Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Cor.) are spiritual commands, not rules that man came up with. We’re using ‘rules’ in the sense of Dr. O’s famous example about not needing to pass a rule that bars students from getting their snacks from the DC dumpster. Maybe you and I need to note the difference by differentiating between “rules of man” and “God’s rules”. Furthermore, the whole purpose of the Law (and I think we can argue rules) is laid out in Romans - they’re designed to prove that we have sinned, not that they can make us holy in and of themselves (Rom 7:7-20, and keep in mind that Paul is referring to the pre-salvation state).

As for the section in bold, yes, I think I would have a problem with ‘rules as a means of spiritual growth’. We have rules here on SI, and you and I (and the other mods) are supposed to enforce them. But I don’t think that you can say ‘rules’ governing behavior on this site are conductive to ‘spiritual growth’. Are they designed for organizational growth or the upholding of societal norms? Yes. Are they designed for spiritual growth? I don’t think so. They may be based off of spiritual commands or laws (Love your neighbor as yourself), but the rules are not going to foster spiritual growth in and of themselves.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

First, I want to thank Matt publicly for this second article. I think it is fair and balanced. Though I still think Aaron has a legitimate point that rules rightly understood, correctly based, properly explained can be helpful is forming a disciplined Christian life, good habits, protection against sin, particularly while one is young and immature, and to regulate how an organization needs to run smoothly with some semblance of unity in areas of propriety and decorum. You can be disciplined without being godly, but you cannot be godly without being disciplined. Rules are aids in learning discipline, but they are no substitute for regeneration, justification, Spirit-controlled living, Christ-likeness, the Fruit of the Spirit. On that most of us can agree, including Matt.

Ron Bean has a legitimate point. It is absurd to treat someone the way he says he was treated over issues such as not using the KJV, reciting the wonderful lyrics to Christ alone, or attending a conference such as T4G or a weekender at Pastor Dever’s church. Those are examples of misunderstood or misapplied principles from Scripture. I don’t think that is where most of our mainstream fundamental colleges or seminaries are.

Pastor Mike Harding

I don’t think the average person uses blood/alcohol levels to determine if someone is drunk or not. For legal purposes, but not I wouldn’t cause I would have the equipment to. Drunkenness is usually pretty clear (not always) by their behavior and without any tests or standards. Gluttony - being control by your food, is not always so oblivious. My simple point is that because someone is overweight doesn’t mean we can assume they have a sin problem with gluttony.

As for the verses - Ez 16:49 is referring to their living a lifestyle of excess and not caring about or sharing with the poor. It context it is not talking about gluttony.

Phil 3:19 is referring to them being so proud of the keeping the dietary and other laws, but they had no real heart for God. The laws became their god. Again in context not talking about gluttony.

Proverbs certainly does say glutton is not wise and should be avoided.

I am glad, although we may disagree on the finer points, we can agree with overall premise.

The topic shows a really strong diffusion tendency. But no biggy. Some topics are like that and this one is worth the work because what we’re really talking about is the nature of Christian living/discipleship and the doctrine of sanctification. So I’ll probably put more energy into pointing out what I’m not saying and not talking about that what I am saying.

[Jay] Blanket commands (of the kind you quoted above in Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Cor.) are spiritual commands, not rules that man came up with. We’re using ‘rules’ in the sense of Dr. O’s famous example about not needing to pass a rule that bars students from getting their snacks from the DC dumpster.

First, I want to point out that what I’m going after is broad-brush anti-legalism rhetoric. The reason I’m going after it is that it tends to overstate certain points and to have the effect of devaluing discipline and sacrifice in Christian living. The points it overstates breed confusion and, sometimes, antinomianism—or just self-indulgent, world-conforming lifestyles. We already have more than enough of that.

So the angle I’m coming form is basically this: the western evangelical/fundamentalist church does not have an excessive lifestyle rigor/discipline problem. Quite the opposite. We really are slouching toward Gomorrah, as a culture, to borrow from Bork (actually, we’re arguably in Gomorrah and slouching through​ it). Hence, rhetoric about Christian living that in any way feeds a more relaxed/casual/self-indulgent attitude is something we really ought to view as toxic.

Ok, to respond to Jay’s quote above, the kind of “legalism” rhetoric I’m referring to as a problem does not identify “rules” as being administrative/procedural stuff that institutions use to manage their resources efficiently. They just say things that communicate “You’re a legalist if you think rules are a means of spirituality.” The effect is to suggest “rules have no role in Christian growth… they’re a kind of necessary evil and we should avoid them as much as possible.”

But, as I’ve shown, this is far from the case. We can’t categorically dismiss rules as instrumental in Christian growth without dismissing discipline as instrumental in Christian growth.

And the folks throwing the term “legalist” around (and writing books against it) are usually talking about people who are particular about what kind of language they use, what kind of clothes they wear, what they listen to and view for entertainment. It’s not usually about where students are allowed to park.

Second, Jay, you referred to my biblical examples (don’t lie, don’t sue a brother, etc.) as not being rules. I’m not sure why. But it’s probably not profitable to get into a “definitions” debate. Perhaps we can find a term that works better.

What I’m talking about is applying Scripture in specific ways, and “don’t lie” is quite specific. As is “Don’t gamble.” (I realize that example didn’t work for Steve, above. I tried to come up with examples that are indisputably obvious but it’s hard these days. How about “don’t commit pedophilia”? There is no verse that says that exactly. So it’s a ‘man made rule.’ And keeping it certainly does make one a better Christian than not keeping it!)

So, just so it’s clear what I’m talking about when I say “rules,” I mean statements that categorically exclude or mandate a specific behavior. So, some of our rules come straight from the Bible (don’t steal) but many of them are applications of Scripture (don’t view porn). Of course, the more complex the application process, the less certainty we have that the rule is a good one and the less certainly we can claim biblical authority for it (or perhaps the “less authority” we can claim for it).

But even rules like “students may not use vending machine x” have a relationship to biblical principle. For a Christian, everything does. In the vending machine case, we’re talking about managing resources efficiently, stewardship, etc. And whether we eat, drink or whatever we do, we do so with the glory of God as the ultimate goal. So there is always a relevant principle for believers.

It’s just that in the case of “rules for running organizations smoothly,” the relationship between rule and principle is a pretty distant and vague one.

But I need to stress—in the interest of focusing on the real problem—that the fact that some (maybe even most) rules are administrative and vaguely principled has no relevance at to the question of whether man-made rules are instrumental (and important) in Christian growth and godly living. They are, and to believe they are is not legalism.

So far, I haven’t seen anyone actually counter the argument I used. And there are others (several) if that one falls! :)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Aaron Blumer]

The topic shows a really strong diffusion tendency. But no biggy. Some topics are like that and this one is worth the work because what we’re really talking about is the nature of Christian living/discipleship and the doctrine of sanctification. So I’ll probably put more energy into pointing out what I’m not saying and not talking about that what I am saying.

[Jay] Blanket commands (of the kind you quoted above in Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Cor.) are spiritual commands, not rules that man came up with. We’re using ‘rules’ in the sense of Dr. O’s famous example about not needing to pass a rule that bars students from getting their snacks from the DC dumpster.

First, I want to point out that what I’m going after is broad-brush anti-legalism rhetoric. The reason I’m going after it is that it tends to overstate certain points and to have the effect of devaluing discipline and sacrifice in Christian living. The points it overstates breed confusion and, sometimes, antinomianism—or just self-indulgent, world-conforming lifestyles. We already have more than enough of that.

So the angle I’m coming form is basically this: the western evangelical/fundamentalist church does not have an excessive lifestyle rigor/discipline problem. Quite the opposite. We really are slouching toward Gomorrah, as a culture, to borrow from Bork (actually, we’re arguably in Gomorrah and slouching through​ it). Hence, rhetoric about Christian living that in any way feeds a more relaxed/casual/self-indulgent attitude is something we really ought to view as toxic.

I agree with all of that :)

Ok, to respond to Jay’s quote above, the kind of “legalism” rhetoric I’m referring to as a problem does not identify “rules” as being administrative/procedural stuff that institutions use to manage their resources efficiently. They just say things that communicate “You’re a legalist if you think rules are a means of spirituality.” The effect is to suggest “rules have no role in Christian growth… they’re a kind of necessary evil and we should avoid them as much as possible.”

But, as I’ve shown, this is far from the case. We can’t categorically dismiss rules as instrumental in Christian growth without dismissing discipline as instrumental in Christian growth.

And the folks throwing the term “legalist” around (and writing books against it) are usually talking about people who are particular about what kind of language they use, what kind of clothes they wear, what they listen to and view for entertainment. It’s not usually about where students are allowed to park.

I understand that, and I agree with you that antinomianism is a problem to avoid, just as legalism is another problem to avoid. Nor do I intend to say that discipline is bad - far from it!

Second, Jay, you referred to my biblical examples (don’t lie, don’t sue a brother, etc.) as not being rules. I’m not sure why. But it’s probably not profitable to get into a “definitions” debate. Perhaps we can find a term that works better.

I appreciate the question instead of trotting out the “Jay hates rules!@!!1!” argument :). My concern is that we’re talking past each other, and I want to avoid that. When I think ‘rules’, I’m thinking church and school policies. I would not refer to the verses that you quoted as ‘rules’, although I would probably (sloppily) refer to them as such at some point in a sermon or elsewhere. I’m trying to make sure that I understand you and that you know that I’m differentiating between SI Policies and Biblical commands.

What I’m talking about is applying Scripture in specific ways, and “don’t lie” is quite specific. As is “Don’t gamble.” (I realize that example didn’t work for Steve, above. I tried to come up with examples that are indisputably obvious but it’s hard these days. How about “don’t commit pedophilia”? There is no verse that says that exactly. So it’s a ‘man made rule.’ And keeping it certainly does make one a better Christian than not keeping it!)

So, just so it’s clear what I’m talking about when I say “rules,” I mean statements that categorically exclude or mandate a specific behavior. So, some of our rules come straight from the Bible (don’t steal) but many of them are applications of Scripture (don’t view porn). Of course, the more complex the application process, the less certainty we have that the rule is a good one and the less certainly we can claim biblical authority for it (or perhaps the “less authority” we can claim for it).

But even rules like “students may not use vending machine x” have a relationship to biblical principle. For a Christian, everything does. In the vending machine case, we’re talking about managing resources efficiently, stewardship, etc. And whether we eat, drink or whatever we do, we do so with the glory of God as the ultimate goal. So there is always a relevant principle for believers.

It’s just that in the case of “rules for running organizations smoothly,” the relationship between rule and principle is a pretty distant and vague one.

Maybe…and maybe not. A lot of ‘rules’ (and I’m using your definition here, I think) ultimately relate to the two greatest commands of “Loving the Lord your God with all your strength” and “Loving your neighbor as yourself” (which is ultimately what all the law hangs on, according to Jesus.

But I need to stress—in the interest of focusing on the real problem—that the fact that some (maybe even most) rules are administrative and vaguely principled has no relevance at to the question of whether man-made rules are instrumental (and important) in Christian growth and godly living. They are, and to believe they are is not legalism.

So far, I haven’t seen anyone actually counter the argument I used. And there are others (several) if that one falls! :)

I don’t think that anyone is arguing against what you’ve said. I do think that the saying that “rules develop Godliness” is where a lot of us got hung up. Is that helpful?

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Jay, Let me ask you what I asked Steve (and others feel free to answer as well), what do you think it means to “discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness”?

Two things necessary for lasting change in almost any area of life: a decision followed by discipline (knowledge and accountability).

A decision w/out accompanying discipline will, more often than not, fall by the wayside.

Discipline not preceded by a specific decision conforms for a time, but doesn’t change anybody.

What this discussion seems to be around is the latter: discipline (rules, if you please) not preceded by decision.

But the problem is not the rules. Rules are necessary, and only by rules is it possible to communicate or codify what is right or wrong, and to what one will be held accountable. The 10 commandments were not ten suggestions. The Jerusalem council (Acts 15), in dealing with the matter of legalism had no issue at all in stipulating rules to the pagan converts and the rest of the church (“these necessary things…”).

Rules are necessary, and determining spirituality by rules is not that bad a thing. I give an immature Christian a reasonable rule of conduct for themselves and they refuse it, I am not amiss in determining a spiritual flaw in them.

Lee

[Lee]

Two things necessary for lasting change in almost any area of life: a decision followed by discipline (knowledge and accountability).

A decision w/out accompanying discipline will, more often than not, fall by the wayside.

Discipline not preceded by a specific decision conforms for a time, but doesn’t change anybody.

Don’t think anyone will really disagree with this. However, the bigger question is where this discipline comes from. Apart from the scripture, and direct authorities it sets up, any discipline that will really matter comes from from within, and is a result of the change in heart attitude and the direction of the Holy Spirit.

The 10 commandments were not ten suggestions. The Jerusalem council (Acts 15), in dealing with the matter of legalism had no issue at all in stipulating rules to the pagan converts and the rest of the church (“these necessary things…”).

Where did the 10 commandments come from? Directly from God. And the Jerusalem church was led directly by apostles, who had authority granted to them that we do not have today. Why do you think the RC church wants to keep the idea of Apostolic succession? It’s because if true, it would grant apostolic authority to the head of their church. Apostolic authority is authority that no human possesses today, and no church today, apart from churches that are part of a denominational hierarchy, something baptists generally don’t accept, has the authority to send a missive to another church demanding obedience to what it says.

Rules are necessary, and determining spirituality by rules is not that bad a thing.

Really? Other than scripture whose rules do you judge true spirituality by? The bible says that by their fruit ye shall know them. What is true fruit? Love, joy, peace, and the other qualities listed in scripture. While some of those qualities (like e.g. longsuffering, meekness, temperance, etc.) might be shown by the response to rules, the acceptance of, and obedience to man-made rules, is not what determines someone’s spirituality. I’m sure the Pharisees thought their application of special washings was reasonable, too. Jesus thought otherwise when it was applied to others and called it “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
I give an immature Christian a reasonable rule of conduct for themselves and they refuse it, I am not amiss in determining a spiritual flaw in them.
This is truly an extraordinary statement. I would have to ask a couple questions:1. Are you in direct authority (like a parent) over the one who is refusing your rule? If not, their refusal to obey your rule shows nothing other than they do not accept the authority you don’t have.2. Who defines “reasonable?” You? Words like that always cloud things if they do not have an agreed-upon definition. Something we accept for ourselves as reasonable has to be shown to be so, not just asserted, when declaring it to be true for others.It is exactly this attitude that is being battled by many here. It’s not that rules we make from applying scripture to follow and use in disciplining ourselves cannot be useful, but that rules made by others without direct biblical authority (or authority that we have voluntarily placed ourselves under, like that of a school) and imposed as “reasonable, and if you don’t follow them, I’m not amiss in determining a spiritual flaw” cannot be used as a determinant of someone’s spiritual standing before God.

Dave Barnhart

It is exactly this attitude that is being battled by many here. It’s not that rules we make from applying scripture to follow and use in disciplining ourselves cannot be useful, but that rules made by others without direct biblical authority (or authority that we have voluntarily placed ourselves under, like that of a school) and imposed as “reasonable, and if you don’t follow them, I’m not amiss in determining a spiritual flaw” cannot be used as a determinant of someone’s spiritual standing before God.

Which is EXACTLY why I differentiate between ‘spiritual principles/commands’ and ‘rules’. God’s commands are not optional. Rules determined by a pastor about dress codes, or policies governing the music standards of an organization, are not nearly as inflexible. Remember what Jesus said about the laws concerning the bread in the Tabernacle?

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

Way to go, Dave. What a great post.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

[dcbii]

Don’t think anyone will really disagree with this. However, the bigger question is where this discipline comes from. Apart from the scripture, and direct authorities it sets up, any discipline that will really matter comes from from within, and is a result of the change in heart attitude and the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Defining discipline as “knowledge plus accountability” for the sake of succinctness, there are at least 3 distinct “sources” for discipline:

1) the church

2) the family

3) the indwelling Holy Spirit utilizing the Word of God to conform to the image of Christ (what we would like to refer to as self-discipline)

I am not aware that Scripture vaunts one above the other. All God-ordained; all purposed with conforming the obedient believer to the image of Jesus Christ.

[Quote=] 1. Are you in direct authority (like a parent) over the one who is refusing your rule? If not, their refusal to obey your rule shows nothing other than they do not accept the authority you don’t have. 2. Who defines “reasonable?” You? Words like that always cloud things if they do not have an agreed-upon definition. Something we accept for ourselves as reasonable has to be shown to be so, not just asserted, when declaring it to be true for others. It is exactly this attitude that is being battled by many here. It’s not that rules we make from applying scripture to follow and use in disciplining ourselves cannot be useful, but that rules made by others without direct biblical authority (or authority that we have voluntarily placed ourselves under, like that of a school) and imposed as “reasonable, and if you don’t follow them, I’m not amiss in determining a spiritual flaw” cannot be used as a determinant of someone’s spiritual standing before God.

Let’s play a story game. You and I are co-pastors (see, we’re very progressive with our plurality of elders) of the 1st Baptist Church of Corinth, the hub of the worship of Aphrodite. One of the young ladies in the college-career class, having been in the church for some time, shows up wearing a very lovely pendant necklace of a golden scallop shell with a classy painting of a pair of swans, necks intertwined, beaks kissing, on it. As pastor you let her know that that particular emblem is not appropriate for her to be wearing. She responds with “but I like it and it doesn’t mean anything to me.” Next meeting time she repeats, this time sporting a pair of dolphin earrings, assuring any who inquired that this was simply a fashion choice—she just liked the look.

Someone takes time to explain to her the significance and its identifying characteristics, but she insists there is nothing unscriptural about it. So we make a rule: don’t wear these symbols for what they signify.

Now, if she continues, do we make some spiritual judgment about her, even to the point of church discipline if it continues?

Cut to Jeopardy melody here…………………….

Lee

I would hope not. She has not violated a Biblical command. The Elders have put themselves in a difficult position by requiring her to obey a man-made rule. Now what? Are they going to be Pharisees, casting her out for violating their rule? Are they going to cast her out because she disobeyed their authority? If authority is exercised without Biblical support, is it to be obeyed? Is it legitimate authority?

Perhaps the elders should take a few moments to thoughtfully read I Corinthians chapter 8. I will cite a few random statements:

“We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one.” (vs. 4)

“But food (or jewelry) does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.” (vs. 8)

“Therefore if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.” (13)

Verse 13 is Paul’s personal decision, his personal “rule.” He does not impose it upon others. He does not say, “Therefore if food makes my brother stumble, I will not allow you to ever again eat meat…”

Is the young girls acting immaturely? No doubt. Are the elders acting legalistically? No doubt. Hopefully, the elders will decide to become the mature Christian adults here, and lead by personal example in those areas where Scripture makes no requirements.

G. N. Barkman

Is this just hypothetical or do these things really mean something?

…. a very lovely pendant necklace of a golden scallop shell with a classy painting of a pair of swans, necks intertwined, beaks kissing, on it. …. [next time] a pair of dolphin earrings, assuring any who inquired that this was simply a fashion choice—she just liked the look. Someone takes time to explain to her the significance and its identifying characteristics, but she insists there is nothing unscriptural about it. So we make a rule: don’t wear these symbols for what they signify.

Do these things really signify anything? If so tell me please. Thanks