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.
- 1 view
It seems to me that a “rule that is nothing more than simple obedience” is Law, which is to say a command of Scripture. Surely no one denies that there are rules in Scripture, which is to say laws, commands, requirements, imperatives.
The issue is “man-made rules.” These are rules that are not in Scripture. These are additions to Scripture. These are humanly devised requirements to help us obey the commands of Scripture. But since they are not Scripture, they can too easily become extra-Biblical “Scriptures.” That’s what the Pharisees did when they added to God’s Word the commandments of men. They probably thought they were being helpful, but they did great harm by teaching for the Word of God the commandments of men. They led people to believe their traditions were equal to (and is some cases superior) to God’s Word. They led people to look to external compliance instead of inward transformation. Their traditions led to pride rather than humility, to reliance upon works rather than grace.
Man-made rules, to keep from becoming harmful, need to be minimal and temporary, and everyone needs to understand that is the case. It is important to clearly distinguish between “thus says the Lord” and “this is my opinion.” It is as wrong to add to Scripture as it is to subtract from it.
Some do not like to call imposing rules of human origination “legalism.” They prefer to reserve that term for systems which teach “works-salvation.” But we need a name for this. Would “Pharisaism” be preferred?
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]The issue is “man-made rules.” These are rules that are not in Scripture. These are additions to Scripture. These are humanly devised requirements to help us obey the commands of Scripture. …
If the only method that Scripture utilized to apply truth was by command I might tend to agree with you. However, Scripture teaches doctrine, gives commands, sets forth principles, provides precedents, and presents illustrations, all having equal authority. And the reason that principles, precedents, and illustrations are so widespread throughout Scripture is likely that so much of the things that make up human experience are not mentioned specifically by command in Scripture because they greatly fluctuates from generation to generation and culture to culture.
What is often qualified as “man-made rules” is many times a specific application of Bible principles, etc., made by individuals with the Holy Spirit gift of discernment, wisdom, knowledge, etc., as a ministry to the church, for the culture and generation of the time.
Pardon my cynicism, but from my limited experience my observation is that most of those who get all lathered up about man-made rules are those who wish to be both the eye and the foot in the body of Christ, as per I Cor. 12.
Lee
It seems to me that a “rule that is nothing more than simple obedience” is Law, which is to say a command of Scripture.
It keeps coming back to application. Do we believe that we can live in obedience to Scripture by only doing precisely what it commands—or do we have to apply it to situations it does not specifically name? I think just about everybody believes that aborting a fetus is disobedient to Scripture even though the Bible doesn’t specifically say “thou shalt not kill unborn babies” or “unborn babies are people.” So we apply it that way.
“Do not get an abortion” is a “man made rule.”
Though, all by itself, complying with the rule doesn’t make a person more holy, when you make the person involved a regenerate, Spirit indwelled “new creation,” you have a different situation. Since getting an abortion would be disobedience to Scripture, not getting one—i.e., keeping that rule, makes you a godlier person.
(Of course, the abortion example fails on one level: for most of us the idea is inherently unthinkable and do not need a “rule.” We’ve internalized that prohibition and no conscious compliance is required. But I use abortion because it’s an example of a man made rule that can be instrumental in sanctification. Lots of others could be cited.)
Who makes the rules?
I do see it a bit differently from Lee, however. I don’t think applying Scripture is exclusively or even mainly the work of people specially gifted for it. It’s mainly what a believer has the responsibility to do in his own life, but secondarily something a believer does for others for whom he has responsibility (e.g., a husband/father for his family) to the degree he has responsibility.
But I do believe a healthy Christian soberly evaluates the views of more mature Christians in these things. It’s just that who is “more” or “less” mature is often impossible to know, so each must be fully persuaded in his own mind.
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.
I still have seen any counterargument to my case that application of Scripture requires rules, application is vital to sanctification, therefore rules are instrumental in sanctification
I’d say that one argument is that application with good categorization obviates rules as a being instrumental in sanctification.
Example 1: Rule— No person should say [sample expression].
Example 2: The Bible tells us believers ought not use coarse language. I believe [sample expression] is coarse language based on [insert reasoning here] so I will not use it.
Example two is direct, case-by-case application with no rules. Furthermore, 2 allows for differences in discernment between parties such as when person A believes it is ok to mutter “Oh, fudge!” when irritated while person B believes it is coarse. It allows soul liberty as well as the option of brothers discussing such differences in light of principle without ever making mere appeal to rules.
Regarding this:
It’s easy for most of us to see this in parenting. I don’t allow my son to play computer games that he’d like to and don’t allow him to play the approved games as much as he’d like to. I’ve explained why, but he absolutely doesn’t get it. It’s possible that he never will, but more likely that he will eventually. But, in any case, the rule does him good whether he understands or not and whether he even cares or not.
I have this exact problem in my house. I do not know that it does my sons good to follow my rules if they are not ultimately exercised by them. My kids could comply but play these games at friends’ and relatives’ houses and grumblingly and bitterly bide their time until they are 18 and then move out and play them all they want. What good has the rule done them?
Discussion