The Biggest Lie about Grace .... Law

Bill said:

“The faith that you say must come into salvation alone can be nothing but dead faith if not accompany by works, and therefore not saving faith.”

Bill, not sure if this helps, but my pastor using the saying of “being proceeds doing”. In other words salvation (by faith alone) proceeds any work of Godly obedience (works). God grants us saving faith and we are saved by that alone by His grace. It is that genuine faith which produces genuine works. If you add works too early (as in entering the door of salvation together) then that salvation would be by faith and works, or something other than Biblical salvation. Rather faith (being) produces the works (doing). In no way does that minimize the fact that a true Christian will produce works, James is clear they will. However they will only produce them after faith has done it’s work, as an evidence of that work in the heart. As James 2:18 we show our faith by our our works. The faith produces the works.

[Bill Roach]

I must respectfully disagree with you(and maybe others on this subject,) when you say about faith and works, “But we don’t enter that road with them together. We enter by faith alone.”

According to a very plain reading of James 2 and in accordance with other Scripture, it is impossible for faith and works to be separate. They are distinct, for sure, but can’t be anymore separate than your body and soul can be.

This must be true whenever true faith exists…whether we are talking about justification, regeneration, or sanctification.

Wherever true faith exists it must be accompanied by works. The faith that you say must come into salvation alone can be nothing but dead faith if not accompany by works, and therefore not saving faith.

Am I missing something from Scripture that teaches otherwise? I know that for many years for me in a Christian High School and then at BJU, I didn’t hear this taught, but since that time have come to understand it differently.

But I want to continue to learn and am open to correction.

Bill, the Scriptures do separate them when it comes to justification. This doesn’t mean any significant length of time passes between the act of believing and the beginning of works that result from that faith. But it’s important to isolate the instrumentality of faith in justification. Paul goes to great lengths to do so in Romans. Note terms such as “does not work” and “apart from works” …

NKJV 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: Ro 4:4–6

The key to understanding James is that is not using “justification” or “save” in precisely the same ways Paul is using them in Romans. An analogy that might help: when a baby is born, it begins breathing. It’s accurate enough to say “living and breathing cannot be separated,” but in reality the baby was living before it began breathing. Once it’s born, there is no separating living and breathing—at least not for long.
But we’re a bit off topic now. Worth digging into further, but maybe better to start another thread and post a link here.

The reason it’s a bit off topic is that, as Larry pointed out, sanctification is not justification and Olson et. al. are talking about how sanctification works.

(I think wkessel1 means “precedes” where “procedes” appears.)

and asked him these questions and asked him to try and put words around it all once again. here are some of my notes:

1. About sanctification: if God is not helping you, nothing will help you. If God is helping you, everything, even your sin, helps/serves you. (Isn’t God always helping? Yes, but in different ways.)

2. Does obeying rules produce/facilitate sanctification? No. A good tree makes good fruit. The tree is what makes the fruit. The fruit doesn’t make the tree better (certain fruits can make your reputation better before men, yes. And they are important to do simply b/c God says they are important. Even if they dont make you better/help you grow, God said to do it and that’s enough reason. Only the Spirit is generating life inside me. Does he use rules? yes. Does he use my sins? yes.)

Restatement: A master carpenter produces good tables. The good tables didn’t make him the master. Conversely, he could produce a bad table one day or for a few days, but it doesn’t mean he’s not a good carpenter.

3. We’ve reduced faith to inaction (almost made it equal to agreeing with certain information). But right faith is supernatural and not something we can generate. Works that we do outside of right faith will not help us—may help our reputation. But right faith is a requirement for producing a good work. For example, works without love are just junk; we will only grow to a certain human level with them.

4. Rules make no one perfect. Focusing on rules makes you focus on self-made righteousness. Jn. 6:63

5. Why the NT commands? When you become a Christian, a fount of life opens up inside you, and you’re asking God what to do. And God is showing you how to direct this fount of love—it’s all a result of God’s work in you.

6. Rules are generally good and helpful, and our rehabilitation center needs them because these men are not led by the Spirit. Then, those who grow into being led by the Spirit willingly put themselves under the rules so they can bless others—Paul did this constantly to evangelize. Gal 5:18

7. In our personal walks with God, we should be maturing towards not needing laws and rules, but doing all things out of love.

8. Carnal Christians who say they have faith but it bears little to no fruit (gave example of Christian woman living in sin and depression), you’re only hope is if the Spirit will open to you the power of God’s words. If regularly practicing sins, pray to be led by the Spirit.

9. Very often, the pattern of Christian growth looks like this: Salvation; immediate growth; plateau. There are usually one or two sins we come to repeat and be ‘defeated’ by. People react differently: some learn to ignore it and go on not expecting freedom, others become disappointed, depressed, see others as hypocrites, see God as not able to help after all my trying. Some stay at this point in various levels. Others God chooses to open up a deeper level of grace—this is almost impossible to put into words. You have joy in God that He accepts you, simultaneously you have some bitter hate of your sin. God accepts me when I’m worthless. I start growing in Christ’s righteousness. And all the first years of salvation somehow begin to look like my own self-righteousness and wooden-deeds that will burn before God’s fire. My self-efforts start to look trashy. One starts enjoying the commandments and there is no fear—treat me how You want, God, I’m not afraid of You any more, I trust everything you do in my life. Your punishment, your discipline—you just know you’re in His hands and you trust Him and are ready to accept whatever and all he gives (whereas before you expected blessing because you were faithfully reading your Bible, etc.)

P.S. Paul says he will show you “a more better way” (I cor 12). Rules are a “way.” But there is a better way.

Does that make any sense? If only YOU could drink cappuchino, eat a Snickers bar, and talk for hours about these things ;) It might make more sense.

Hi BJ(hope that’s your name,)

I appreciate what you and your pastor have said, but I sill have trouble reconciling any faith that is not accompanied by works. I don’t think that “genuine faith produces genuine works” is a Biblical thought. I may be wrong, but I don’t see it taught any where.

I know that we have been taught for many years that “works don’t save us.” And I do believe that. But any attempts to bifurcate faith and works leads to the exact problem we are having in this discussion. I have many friends who think that the phrase, “we are saved by faith alone” is in the Bible. When in fact it can be found no where. I like what Spurgeon said(via Mike Harding.) But what we do find in Scripture is faith and works together. And clearly together in James 2.

I just don’t see a true believing faith apart from works. We need to be careful that our language reflects the Scripture.

And I really do think that until we settle this issue, the understanding of how one is sanctified(or saved)- grace/obedience, law/grace…etc, will be tossed back and forth. I just don’t think God made this one so complicated and unclear.

But I’m watching for Aaron’s response…he’ll probably set me straight!

Does obeying rules produce/facilitate sanctification? No. A good tree makes good fruit. The tree is what makes the fruit.

Yes, but if you want to use this analogy, certain horticultural techniques do produce fruit, more fruit, and better fruit. But I don’t think we should stress analogies farther than they were intended.

Again, to me, the issue is that God gave us certain rules and tied them directly to sanctification, and motivated us with fear.

But right faith is a requirement for producing a good work.

Yes, but they produce work. But that faith operates in the arena of God’s revelation whereby we believe what he tells us and act in accordance with that belief. He give us rules, and expects to act like we believe he was serious about those rules.

Perhaps this is all about semantics at some level. I am honestly not sure. I would not suggest that following rules can make one acceptable to God through justification. I would not suggest that rules alone, separated from the heart, are sufficient for sanctification. But neither would I say that we can be sanctified without rules. There are some universal rules given in Scripture that we all must obey out of faith for sanctification. There are also rules of practicality, again based on faith in God’s word, and based on our individual situations, that are wise means of guarding oneself in the pursuit of sanctification. Hence the rule about alcoholics have dinner in bars. To say that it doesn’t aid their sanctification seems strange to me.

And with that, my friends, I will try to remove myself here unless someone directs something to me specifically.

God’s Law is the standard, not rules. I think “rules” come about when we make personal application. And that application is very good and necessary. Like in Proverbs 1:8 when we are told not to “forsake the law of our mother.” I believe this is different than the Law of God(sorry, mom but I knew that my argument was based somewhere in Scripture!) But alas, Mom’s Law is important and we need to heed it, especially as a child. It is the application of Mom loving and obeying God and His Word and training her children in the Paideia(nurture and admonition,) of the Lord. The “rules” or applications become difficult(not impossible) when we have institutions like Christian Schools trying to make those applications equally for everyone. It doesn’t work on a familial level and it won’t really work at an institution level. It is really hard to love God for our brother or sister. They must do it themselves.

If we focus on faith in Christ and obedience to God’s Law, we are on the path of sanctification. A lack of faith or a lack of obedience will derail us. The frustration and fallout of living a life of “obedience” without faith in Christ has been played over and over again in our Fundamental Baptist Churches. The fallout of trying to live a life of faith, or grace, or the heart, or love without obedience(works,) is ending up in a different ditch and is diminishing the light and savor of the believer in our current day. I believe we have yet to reap the whirlwind on this errant theology.

Sorry for the many posts, but so, so crucial an issue!

Let me say it a few other ways.

All my obedience to rules, to NT commands, all my obediences will never meet God’s standards. ALL my obediences will never ever ever meet God’s standards. Every day of my life, until I die, I myself will never ever ever, in all my obediences, meet God’s standards for obedience.

Only Christ can and did meet God’s standards. The former alcoholic who won’t eat in a bar—the not eating in a bar is not God’s goal for him. God’s goal for him is for him to be so filled up with His love and Spirit that that man walks in complete freedom and every action is led by perfect love and in obedience to the Holy Spirit. Does that rule help him gain that ultimate goal? It might or it might not …. It’s up to God.

Then, obeying out of faith—But what faith? that all my obedience will never save me or make me more acceptable/sanctified before God? That Christ is all. This is the faith that I must have.

I could obey out of faith that God exists and He made the universe and sure we have to obey Him for those reasons, but that’s not “right” faith in this context.

Do i really understand this or that truth how God meant it? right acts come from right understanding. Example, God is love. A certain reaction kicks in immediately. And often this is just based on a mixture of godly and ungodly ideas. So many of these truths are deformed to us and cause us to see God in a deformed way. So we have to continually ask God to show us truth in the right way.

For example, God gives us many passages in the NT with commands. Our reaction could me, OK, I can earn my salvation! But that’s not what God meant. Another reaction could be, OK, now I can move my sanctification by doing this. Is that really what God means? Am I having the right reaction towards this truth? (Like predestination should produce humbleness in you and if it produces proudness, you don’t understand it the right way.)

So sanctification and rules. if God gives us rules, that means we can keep them, that we can grow spiritually. But thsi is not the rigth reaction. So start with the question. why do i need to keep this rules? why do You demand this from me? We can know for sure that God really does demmand this from us. but does it mean we can keep it? that it helps us grow?

Go back to Adam, when he was perfect, God demanded from him all the rules that he was naturally fulfilling b/c his nature was sinless. one commandment was not to eat of the fruit. Then Adam broke it, and Adam is not able to be righteous any more. Does God have to stop demanding these things from us because we’re sinful? No, God demands from sinful people the same rules He had for non-sinful people.

Because God demands it from me, must He make me able to perform it? No.

And Yes—but not through my own righteousness but through Christ’s. My own spiritual growing depends on one thing: on how I understand/digest/accept Christ’s righteousness. That’s the only measure for spiritual growth, but it is mostly invisible. And it’s only the Spirit is able to make a person grasp this.

What can i do? keep learning how needy I am. Keep rejoicing in how God is blessing me. Then the more i am joyful and thankful back to Him … and the more …

This is a fun discussion. I think we had a similar “back and forth” three or four years ago. As I recall that one was not as “civil” as this one is. Congratulations to everyone for being “calm.” It’s a beautiful thing when we’re - you know - rich in opinion, but trying to be civil and all. Enjoying this one from the comfort of my Lawn 4000. Beautiful day here in the Metro Phoenix area.

So - a few more random thoughts here. I think we would say that a believer who loves God will in fact strive to follow “Biblical rule.” Those who love their pastor and have a pastor who is not a dictator but a true loving shepherd - when he uses his authority within church life - most sensitive believers will submit to their pastor - because they love him and trust him. Also because a Godly pastor is not always using his authority like a sledge hammer to get his way. The same is true of children in a home. “Children obey your parents.” That means if there are rules at home that are beyond those found in Scripture - Scripture would say unless those rules violate the clear teaching of God’s Word a child should obey his parents. Romans 13 make it clear that again Christian’s should obey the authority of government (accept when those rules clearly contradict the teachings of Scripture). These kind of rules seem legitimate. However, when rules become twisted believers are to recognize they are twisted and in those occasions, are not to follow those rules.

Several of you have already rightly noted that Spiritual growth in this dispensation because of the internal work of the Holy Spirit works from the heart to the surface. I don’t think that was exactly the same in the Old Testament. It looks to me as if in the OT - OT saints “participated” a bit more in their own sanctification by obeying the law of Moses. I’m open to thinking more on that with any of you who have made a study of that.

In fairness to we who are issuing the concern about a “performance-based” Christianity - please do not read a “antinomianism” in that. Rules have their place. It seems as if in the area government and Romans 13 rules in society are there in part to restrain evil. In my mind rules become confused or mis-understood when we do two things:

1. Wrong approach to rules #1 - Treat them as if they “make” our sanctification. I will admit that there is a sense in which a true heart for Godliness can be strengthened by “rule-keeping.” There is a sense in which our spiritual muscles are exercised towards Godliness by doing right. Maybe a better way of saying that is “rule-keeping” aids us not because of our doing right - but because of our submitting right. To follow a rule (not just from the surface but from the heart) demands a humble and righteous heart attitude. So it’s that heart attitude that furthers our faith - not merely following the rule - but having a certain disposition that comes with following the rule with a right spirit. However that is only true when we are obeying the rules from a heart that is open/teachable/pliable/happy/submissive. I might also limit this to legitimate rules - that is rules coming from Scripture or rules coming from legitimate authority. However clearly if all we are doing is obeying rules on the outside without an internal submission - the rule-keeping does nothing but compel us towards a kind of spiritual self-reliance and ultimately a self-centered or man-centered religion.

2. Wrong approach to rules #2 - Allow rules to be hijacked and are wrongly used to judge or control other believers.

In fundamentalist circles we’ve seen that in the Hyles orb. We have also seen that in the Bill Gothard movement. When you look closely at Gothard’s material - you have all the same kind of ingredients that went into the Colossians heresy. You remember that in Colossians Paul had to deal with a heretical mess. Jewish, Secular and apparently even some Christian teachers had been influenced by some kind of hybrid “Mystical-elitist-Jewdaistic-angel-worship” belief-system. When you especially look at Colossians 2 - you can see Paul’s dealing with rules that had been twisted and misunderstood and misapplied to even believers. Powerful are the words of Paul in Colossians 2:16-23. You essentially had a Gnostic - Mystical - Part ascetic rules and restricted life styles - that lead to a kind of social/theological elitism. It looks as if whatever this heresy was mixed in OT/Jewish legalism. Frankly anytime I think of Gothard and the way he twists OT teachings and even his own teachings and equate those with following Christ - frankly my mind goes to Colossians 2. “Touch not - taste not - handle not - these have an outward appearance of wisdom but are worthless in light of reality/eternity!” (Tetreau paraphrase)

A few thoughts - Looking forward to seeing more thinking here.

Straight Ahead!

jt

The problem in Paul’s day consisted of genuine Legalism. The nature of the Legalists’ message involved an essential change in the content of the Gospel (Gal 1:8-9; 2:16; cf. circumcision in Gal 5:2-4; Holy Days in Gal 4:10; ceremonial regulations in Gal 2:11-14). These regulations were all contained in the OT Mosaic Law. The Galatians were confused by the Legalists (Judaizers) that they were now somehow responsible for their own justification (Gal 3:1-5). Thus, they were guilty of switching the doctrine of justification with the doctrine of sanctification. Ultimately, the Judiazers’ message led to eternal condemnation (Gal 1:8-9) and made the work of Christ of no effect (Gal 5:4). Paul’s sternness is due to the eternal consequences of these issues which was the rejection of God’s grace found in the redemptive work of Christ. Paul was not attacking a “code of conduct” but a false gospel which calls men to seek justification by the works of the Mosaic Law.

The problem in our day consists of accused legalism. Do those who advocate rule keeping in any form teach that rule keeping will justify them before God? No one in our circles advocates that personal standards or institutional standards secures their justification. We preach a gracious gospel that requires repentant faith in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ for justification. Then what is the basis for accused legalism? One of my former staff members put it this way:

Major Premise: Believers are free from the Law

Minor Premise: The Law is a set of rules

Conclusion: Believers are free from rules

We must remembers that Paul was specifically addressing the Mosaic Law, not the concept of law as a principle. Thus, admitting that we are no longer under the Mosaic Law is not equivalent to saying that we are not under any law.

Chuck Swindoll, on the other hand, mis-defined Legalism in Galatians as “an attitude, a mentality based on pride… . an obsessive conformity to an artificial standard for the purpose of exalting oneself”(“Grace Awakening”, p. 81). Here he attacks both the attitudes and the actions of the alleged legalists–a prideful attitude expressed through standard keeping. Rather than defining the Law in Galatians as the Mosaic Law, he changes the definition to “an artificial standard”. Here Swindoll mis-defines Legalism and the Law to suit his argument. The third method of attack, then, is to attack the alleged Legalist’s relationship to the Holy spirit. One well-known evangelical writes: “Only pride or ignorance could lead a believer to live by an outward list of rules and commands in his own sinful power when he can live by the perfect power of the Holy Spirit. Yet that’s what many believers in the Galatian churches were trying to do”. Thus the contrast foisted is living in our “own sinful power” or in the “perfect” power of the Holy Spirit. The writer then connects “limited and sinful power” with “rules and commands” implying that the inner work of the Spirit eliminates rules and commands.

One of the problems with this thinking is the excluded middle. Could a believer live under new rules and/or commands by the inner working of the Spirit? Does not the Spirit illumine the mind of the believer to see the personal significance, meaning, and application of biblical rules, commands, and principles? Does biblical authority stand on its own merit apart from any internal working of the Spirit. Those who advocate the Swindoll position actually end up tilting toward self-rule as opposed to Spirit-rule. Swindoll says, “Let me give it to your straight. Don’t give me your personal list of do’s-and-dont’s to live by! And you can count on this: I will never give you my personal list of do’s-and-dont’s to follow!” (“Grace”, p. 132).

The pattern of discipleship taught and displayed in the NT is reproduction of a pattern (Luke 6:40). This practice was exemplified by Paul (1 Thess 1:6; 1 Cor 11:1). Timothy followed the same pattern (2 Tim 2:2). Also, believers are to submit to and obey the leaders of their local assemblies (Heb 13:7, 17) who are responsible for the spiritual direction and moral training of their hearers. This necessitates practical and instructional guidelines for personal holiness. In so doing we need to have a gracious and humble spirit, recognize that some matters are debatable, and not be preoccupied with external sins while ignoring sins of the human spirit.

Let me say I actually think I can understand and appreciate the push back to Matt and others of us who say similar things. I think in some of your minds - some of you are thinking that we are saying the same thing as those who say, “We are free in Christ so we can do whatever we want.” OK - as a pastor that’s disgusting and no Matt nor any of us believe that is close to being right. OK - but you don’t fight that by making legitimate that which is not legitimate - namely the “rule-making” for each believer every kind of decision that faces them in their personal life. You guys - you can’t do that and that is exactly what some of you are arguing for in reality.

So, it’s not true that Matt or others here are against rules. I’m confident that most who are accused of being antinomian are in fact “pro-rule” in a variety of cases:

1. The rules Christ gives in the gospels that often are trans-dispensational.

2. The 1100 commands found within the text of the NT - these are the “law of Christ.” BTW - the majority of the non-levitic/ceremonial aspects of the 613 codes of Moses are in the main repeated in the 1100 for the NT believer.

3. Legitimate rules coming out of the 3 God-ordained institutions (church, home, gov’t).

What’s being said here is that (1) it simply is not the case that obeying a rule within the sphere of church life or even personal discipline will mean automatically “growth in Christ” (hence my example of the Christian school movement). (2) That all rules given by spiritual leaders should be unquestioned or even followed to the same degree of the three categories I listed earlier (1-3). As a matter of fact their are a variety of occasions in the Scriptures where a wrong approach to rules are singled out and even warned against. For instance what about if you have a pastor who is a kin to Diotrophes who demands “pre-emenence.” If you don’t follow his rules he throws you out of the fellowship. No - don’t obey the rules of Diotrophes because he’s a twisted leader demanding twisted rules. Instead hang with Gaius! (Tetreau paraphrase of 3 John).

By the way there is indeed a legitimate place for each individual to make certain determinations as to limits to Christian liberty. Some may call this a fallacy of the excluded middle. In Romans 14 (I think verse 19 onward) Paul makes the point powerfully that some “liberties” are judged as “righteousness” while other believers would be judged as “sinful.” Same action - for one “righteousness.” The other - “sin.” Again some leaders would say they should help you out and just demand which group is right - and make a rule out of that (at the exclusion of Christian liberty) because you can’t let believers of the “general kind” determine these kinds of liberties by themselves (I think this was called “self rule” vis-a-vis “Spirit rule.”). Actually indeed that is the point of the passage. It would be sinful - or another way of saying that is - it is sinful when a pastor demands of his congregation to have the same standards on Christian liberty issues that he does. How is this not a form of legalism? Also - if that wasn’t bad enough - those leaders who say that these “extra” rules help perfect you (by way of the flesh - even “good” flesh) is also a form of legalism (This is exactly what is alluded to in Gal 3:3 - which I think may have been one of Matt’s initial points).

In my view this is similar to what we have in Acts 15. In the first few verse you had certain individuals saying unless you are circumcised you cannot be saved. Then in verse five once Paul and his company were in Jerusalem there were some believes who were still connected to the Pharisees. The text does not say they were saying one had to be circumcised to saved. It simply states that they should be circumcised because of the law. In my view in verse one you have an example of legalism in connection to salvation - you must follow this OT rule to be saved. In my view in verse five you have an example of legalism in connection to sanctification - you must follow this OT rule to be “right” (not necessarily “saved”). Admittedly there are some commentators that say the guys in verse 5 are saying the same thing in verse 1. I disagree in part because the guys in verse 5 are called “believers.” The first group are only said to be from Judea who teaching the brothers said, “be circumcised to be saved.” Coupled with Galatians 3 as well as some of the other passages previously mentioned by Matt and others of you - those who believe you can be furthered in your walk by obeying extra-biblical or man-made rules (that fall outside of those three categories) are in fact legalistic.

As noted in Math 23:4, these kinds of demands are especially twisted when the leader is unwilling to live by the same standard. A friend of mine in the mid-west was explaining that one area Christian School had a policy (rule) of no movie attendance. Well - apparently it was something of a joke because everyone - including school employee’s would attend the local Harkins. So a leader on the board suggested the rule be changed. The Board was incensed and disagreed with changing the rule - one of the board members mentioned that the ministry should keep a high standard! Most of the board shook their head in agreement. The proposed change was tabled. The goofy thing here was that the overwhelming % of the board members themselves attended the same movie theater! Hello! Go ahead and pause to get the effect of that on the students, teachers, etc…..yeah.

As I noted earlier - when you have a twisted leader demanding his own rules on God’s people and he doesn’t even live up to the same expectation - you have a similar kind of thing going on as we see in Colossians 2 - verse 17 - which is instructive. Don’t allow these leaders to impose that which they will try to impose.

The “take home” for leaders, especially is this - God’s children under your care have a hard enough time following the rules of God communicated by God’s Word and administered by His Spirit. Why do you want to complicate that by throwing your own personal rules and expectations into the mix!? Where the teachings of Scripture clearly lay demand on God’s children - then a commitment to Holiness demands that we teach that. However when that application is not clear by way of the text or is an issue that good men differ on - at least be honest enough and teach those who follow you the difference between “your view” and the “clear view” of Scripture. It is exactly because fundamentalism has not been careful here that we have lost too many of our children to ecumenical evangelicalism if not worse! This kind of approach leads to the worst kind of Christianity. A weak-minded Christianity that has to have a pastor fill out a check list of what’s good and what’s bad.

Blessings on you my friends! Sorry for the length of the epistle - it’s long because I don’t want to post 10 different posts on the same thread - like some of the last few threads I’ve been involved in. Hopefully I’ve said all that I need to and can just cheer for the rest of you as you beat this one into the dirt! I think I’ll head back under the shadow of the AZ cacti. Later Saints!

Straight Ahead!

jt

[Joel Tetreau]

Let me say I actually think I can understand and appreciate the push back to Matt and others of us who say similar things. I think in some of your minds - some of you are thinking that we are saying the same thing as those who say, “We are free in Christ so we can do whatever we want.” OK - as a pastor that’s disgusting and no Matt nor any of us believe that is close to being right. OK - but you don’t fight that by making legitimate that which is not legitimate - namely the “rule-making” for each believer every kind of decision that faces them in their personal life. You guys - you can’t do that and that is exactly what some of you are arguing for in reality.

Well… Joel, I don’t think anyone is arguing for “the “rule-making” for each believer every kind of decision that faces them in their personal life.” I would accept the point that we may be reading more into what Matt is saying than he intends, but he should make that clear himself, don’t you think?

[Joel Tetreau] So, it’s not true that Matt or others here are against rules.

Didn’t Northland do away with their rule book? Maybe you should just speak for yourself and let Matt speak for himself, eh?

[Joel Tetreau]

3. Legitimate rules coming out of the 3 God-ordained institutions (church, home, gov’t).

Who decides what is “legitimate”?

[Joel Tetreau] What’s being said here is that (1) it simply is not the case that obeying a rule within the sphere of church life or even personal discipline will mean automatically “growth in Christ” (hence my example of the Christian school movement).

I don’t think anyone in this discussion disagrees with this point. But it is a fact that rules can be helpful to the growing Christian. That doesn’t mean he is sanctified by rule keeping, but rules nevertheless aid his sanctification.

[Joel Tetreau] (2) That all rules given by spiritual leaders should be unquestioned or even followed to the same degree of the three categories I listed earlier (1-3).

I don’t quite follow you on this one, but how do you discern the difference between what you seem to be talking about here and your #3 above? You have actually already conceded our point that there are at least some legitimate extra-biblical rules by your #3. We might debate which ones are legitimate and which ones are Diotrephesian (how do you like that scholarly word???), but you have already conceded that such rules are legitimate.

[Joel Tetreau] Coupled with Galatians 3 as well as some of the other passages previously mentioned by Matt and others of you - those who believe you can be furthered in your walk by obeying extra-biblical or man-made rules (that fall outside of those three categories) are in fact legalistic.

You are referring to Acts 15 here, along with Galatians 3, just didn’t want to quote the whole thing.

First, who is arguing that one can be furthered in their walk by obeying extra-biblical or man-made rules? I don’t think anyone here is arguing for that. However, some of us are arguing that rules can be helpful for a growing Christian as I said above. I think you are arguing against a straw man here.

Second, as to the passages, Acts 15 and Gal 3, I believe both are dealing with the same incident, Galatians being written just before the Acts 15 council occurred (I realize that is a somewhat speculative position). The issue is whether circumcision and other Jewish laws were necessary to salvation in both passages. I think you are pushing your exegesis pretty hard to make it about both salvation and ‘general rule-keeping’. I wonder if your view on Acts 15.5 would be anywhere close to a majority view in the commentaries? I’m guessing its a minority view, if it is there at all.

Third, when you said “Legitimate rules coming out of the 3 God-ordained institutions (church, home, gov’t)”, presumably you are talking about man-made rules. If a Christian doesn’t keep these legitimate man-made rules, do they have a spiritual problem? Is there a sanctification problem? I wouldn’t argue that someone who keeps these legitimate rules is necessarily sanctified or even a growing Christian, but if they won’t keep the rules, there is a spiritual problem somewhere.

[Joel Tetreau] It is exactly because fundamentalism has not been careful here that we have lost too many of our children to ecumenical evangelicalism if not worse!

How do you explain evangelicalism’s complaints about losing young people? There is a lot of discussion over there about exactly the same problem. Presumably they have fewer man-made rules, so what gives?

~~~

I’m sitting here fooling around with tech support on one of my sites so thought I’d go through your long post and give you a longish reply.

Now… should we start a pool on how long it takes for your to wade back into the fray? Or will you just sit back in the cacti shadows?

[Mike Harding]

One of the problems with this thinking is the excluded middle. Could a believer live under new rules and/or commands by the inner working of the Spirit? Does not the Spirit illumine the mind of the believer to see the personal significance, meaning, and application of biblical rules, commands, and principles? Does biblical authority stand on its own merit apart from any internal working of the Spirit.

I think this is where some Christians in our circles can feel betrayed by the leadership. Let me try and explain.

If a person is really growing, they come to a point where they realized that God’s standards for the Christian are not reachable (I will explain this in a minute). And they feel betrayed because the leadership they were under caused them, usually by implication, not direct words, to believe or feel that their actions and obediences were the bases of God’s pleasure with them. They also come to understand that all the rules were not what God was requiring of them, that they, in working on keeping these rules, were building something in their lives that doesn’t matter.

The leaders, wittingly or unwittingly, lowered God’s standards. Good motives or not good motives, they lowered God’s standards. And if a person remains in this context, their whole spiritual growth will be stunted.

God’s rules and standards are not reachable: I can get to the point where I read my Bible everyday, even enjoy it. But even that is not God’s standard. I can get to the point where I pray through comprehensive lists or journals, even enjoy it, but even that is not God’s standard.

(I have to go, so i’m sorry, ityping fast)

God’s standards, if we are really seeing them, are things that we cannot reach. Don’t be drunk with wine but be filed with the spirit. so can i be filled wiht hte spirit every single moment of every day? that’s the standard. And only christ can and did do it.

people feel betrayed by leaders who continue to imply that God is somehow pleased, inhereently pleased, by our attempts of obedience. When really, He cannot be. He can only be pleased by Christ. ANd that is where our growth has to START FrOM.

I am late, but tyring to explain why peopel are reacting the way they are right now to “rules”

[Anne Sokol]

God’s standards, if we are really seeing them, are things that we cannot reach. Don’t be drunk with wine but be filed with the spirit. so can i be filled wiht hte spirit every single moment of every day? that’s the standard. And only christ can and did do it.

people feel betrayed by leaders who continue to imply that God is somehow pleased, inhereently pleased, by our attempts of obedience. When really, He cannot be. He can only be pleased by Christ. ANd that is where our growth has to START FrOM.

1 Thessalonians 4:1 Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you excel still more. 2 For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.

And carry on through 1 Thess 4.1-12

how perfectly are you pleasing Him??

[Anne Sokol] If a person is really growing, they come to a point where they realized that God’s standards for the Christian are not reachable (I will explain this in a minute).

Anne,

I think you have a problem from the get-go here. It would be correct to say it is impossible to reach God’s standards on our own. However, that is not the case for the Christian. 1 Corinthians 10:13 is explicit, there is never a reason why a Christian cannot (is unable to) overcome any temptation in any given situation. The reality is that we never fully arrive at obedience in this life, but the it is just as real that God says their is no reason we cannot (are unable). We just don’t; which is a far different animal.