Legalism & Galatians Part 2: Law, Liberty & The Flesh
Image
In a previous post, I asserted that popular confusion about law, grace, and the Christian life is often partly due to misunderstanding what was happening in the Galatian churches and what Paul taught to correct it. I argued that the Galatian trouble centered on their understanding of justification and its relationship to Mosaic Law, and that they were led astray by unbelievers who, in reality, cared as little for the Law of Moses as they did for the gospel.
Seen in this light, the epistle does not encourage sweeping rejections of effort and struggle in the Christian life, nor does it provide a basis for excluding firm boundaries against sin (often termed “man-made rules”) in Christian living.
But loose ends remain. Further study of the letter not only resolves the remaining issues but also clarifies common points of confusion such as the distinction between conscious self-discipline vs. “the flesh” (or the non-biblical term, “self-effort”) and the difference between slavery to the Law vs. obedience to Christ.
Some Problem Passages
Galatians 5:1
For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (ESV, Gal. 5:1)
“Freedom,” “free” and “yoke of slavery” are the key terms here. The “yoke of slavery” is often taken to refer to all forms of do’s and don’ts beyond what is expressly revealed in Scripture. Given the fact that the Galatian problem specifically referenced do’s and don’ts God had revealed in Scripture (“circumcision”—13 times!) this is an interesting application to derive from the text. It’s possible the reference to days, months, seasons, and years in Galatians 4:10 includes some “man-made rules,” but may just as readily refer to what God gave to Israel.
The “yoke of slavery” was not rules in general or even the Law of Moses, per se, but the corrupt teaching that the Law (or some parts of it) is the path to justification. How the justified go about living holy lives is not in view in 5:1.
So where does this view of 5:1 come from? In many cases, it’s simply read into the text for convenience. Others, though, are taking 5:1 in light of a faulty understanding of “the flesh” in Galatians 3:2-3.
Galatians 3:2-3
Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? (Gal. 3:2-3)
Here, Paul seems to point out the absurdity of beginning their Christian experience through the work of the Spirit, then attempting to grow in holiness (sanctification) by self-effort. But what do the terms “the flesh” and “being perfected” actually mean? Rather than accepting our first impression as fact, perhaps we should take a closer look?
ESV’s and NASB’s “being perfected” translates the Greek epiteleo (present middle/passive). NIV (1984) paraphrases: “trying to attain your goal.” The 2011 NIV shows more restraint: “trying to finish” (so also NET). KJV and NKJV opt for “made perfect,” implying a completed act: “now made perfect.”
So is Paul correcting their understanding of their position in Christ (justification, etc.) or correcting their view of the Christian experience (sanctification)? The Greek is somewhat ambiguous on that point, so a study of “the flesh” in Galatians is helpful.
“The Flesh” in Galatians
The word for “flesh” (sarx) occurs 18 times in Galatians. Several of these refer to the physical body or some physical aspect,1 but the remainder speak of “the flesh” negatively in a variety of ways.2
Positionally, the flesh is dead through our union with Christ (Gal. 5:24a, Rom. 6:6-7), but in experience, it is still very much alive (Rom. 6:12-13, Colos. 3:5, 8—which, by the way, interprets Rom. 6:11). In Galatians, the flesh clearly includes a set of fallen appetites (Gal. 5:24b, “passions… desires”), and its “works” are various forms of indulgence of corrupt desires (Gal. 5:19-21). The flesh is anti-Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:17), anti-service (Gal. 5:13) and anti-good works (6:9). It is actually opposed to “fulfilling” the law (Gal. 5:14).
So if the flesh opposes good works and Law-fulfilling, what are we to make of the passages where Paul links the flesh to “the law” (3:2, 3:5)?
The answer lies in what we’ve already observed about the Galatian problem and Paul’s corrective teaching. Galatians 3:3 is surrounded by references to justification and is not a departure from that topic. Here’s the passage again with some context:
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? … Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. (Gal. 2:21-3:7)
In this sequence, Paul begins with how we obtain righteousness and ends with how we become true sons of Abraham. These are both ways of speaking of our position with God, our standing, as is evidenced by the reference to what is “counted” as righteousness in Galatians 3:6 (compare Paul’s extended discussion of justification in Romans 4 based on the same quotation from Genesis 15:6).
In context, “now being perfected” refers to completing our standing with God, our justification—a foolish effort for at least two reasons: (1) the old covenant was never intended to justify, and (2) believers already stand in grace, fully justified by faith. There is nothing to perfect (finish).
What, then, does “in the flesh” refer to? It should come as no surprise that “the flesh” in Galatians 3:3 has the same meaning we see in all the other non-physical references in the epistle. It refers to the sinfulness that remains in believers. Since the Law is already fulfilled in Christ, and justification is already fully accomplished for those who believe, any effort to complete that standing through the Law is a farce. What is really driving that effort is pride, envy, strife, and similar “passions” and “desires” (5:24b).
Galatians 4:9-10
What about Paul’s reference to “turn[ing] back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more”? Is he speaking here of believers who know they are fully justified “returning” to personal effort as a growth strategy?
The understanding of 3:3 above has no difficulty here. These weak and worthless elementary principles are not the Law of Moses. The predominantly-Gentile Galatians could not “return” to those; rather, Paul indicates that attempting to be “more justified” through portions of a now-ended covenant is, in reality, an expression of pride, envy, strife, and various evil desires (see, again, Gal. 6:12-13).
To put it another way, if you have finished a journey, then try to somehow go further by stepping on to some stairs that are not actually there anymore, what you do is fall (Gal. 5:4).
Wrapping Up
“The flesh” in Galatians does not include the tiniest particle of desire to grow in Christlikeness or to bring God pleasure (Col 1:10, 2 Cor. 5:9) through disciplined obedience (1 Tim 4:7b-8), nor was calling believers to work hard at serving others and at growing in holiness any part of the Galatian error.
“The law” in Galatians refers either to the Mosaic Covenant itself or (possibly more often) the specific error of viewing Law as a path to justification. It does not refer to law as an abstraction, much less to “man-made rules.”
In most cases, “faith” in Galatians is the alternative to the false gospel of justification by works (e.g., Gal. 2:16, 3:11, 3:24). In this epistle, faith is not set up in opposition to works as a method of living the Christian life (i.e., sanctification). Indeed, the idea that we grow either by faith or by works is implicitly rejected in statements like these:
For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (Gal. 5:13)
And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. (Gal. 6:9)
The word for “justify” (dikaioō) and its close cousin “righteousness” (dikaiosunē) appear thirteen times in 2:15-5:15, the section of the book that focuses on countering the Galatian error. As always in Paul, it refers to the believer’s standing before God and what is credited to him.
Galatians does not encourage us to view the Christian life as one in which nothing but faith is required of us, nor does it teach that growth in sanctification occurs by faith alone.
1 These are: 1:16, “anyone;” 2:16 “no one;” 2:20, “live in the flesh;” 4:13 “bodily ailment;” 4:14 “condition;” 4:23 & 29, “born…the flesh;” 6:13, “boast in your flesh.”
2 Negative references to “the flesh” in Galatians:
- in contrast with the Holy Spirit: Gal. 3:3, 5:16 & 17, 5:19 (cf. 5:22), 6:8
- parallel with the “works of the law”: Galatians 3:3 (compare Gal. 3:2, 3:4)
- what “freedom” may, but should not be, used for: Galatians 5:13
- in contrast to serving one another and “fulfil[ling]” the Law: Galatians 5:13-14
- what produces “works” such as “sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife…and things like these”: Galatians 5:19-20
- what is already crucified: Galatians 5:24
- linked with “passions and desires”: Galatians 5:24
- sowing to it contrasted with doing good works: Galatians 6:8-9
Aaron Blumer 2014 Bio
Aaron Blumer, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years.
- 35 views
Regarding Gal 5:1, Aaron wrote:
- “The ‘yoke of slavery’ was not rules in general or even the Law of Moses, per se, but the corrupt teaching that the Law (or some parts of it) is the path to justification.”
- I agree completely. Well said.
Regarding Gal 3:2-3, Aaron wrote:
- “Since the Law is already fulfilled in Christ, and justification is already fully accomplished for those who believe, any effort to complete that standing through the Law is a farce.”
- I agree as well. The problem is that the Judaizers were attempting to pervert the simplicity of the Gospel by adding the Mosaic law to the finished work of Christ. Thus, their equation was “Jesus + Law = Salvation.” Paul scoffed at that idea, as though the Spirit began salvation, and they finished it. Sounds more than a bit like the Roman Catholic scheme of justification (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2027).
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Aaron Blumer]…I have thought that Jesus is speaking here of the the Law and [failed] justification. That is, Jesus intends and accomplishes the “First use of the Law.” Remember that the question asked was, “25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?””I don’t believe that keeping 100% of the law 100% of the time would result in justification, even if someone could do it. So where Jesus tells His interlocutor “do this and you will live,” or something similar, I’m inclined to think He is not speaking of justification. Luke 10:28-29… in v.29 the man desires “to justify himself.” … which was the real problem.
…
The guy wanted to know what HE had to do to gain eternal life. “Love God, Love your neighbor.” And the guy knows he can’t do it. He immediately starts trying to bring the neighbor part down to a level he thinks he can do.
[Anne Sokol]I’ve been rolling this thread around mentally for a while, but I’m so out of it, I’m not sure I want to type out all my thoughts. But, I think I will start with some questions that trying to answer are very interesting even for me.
1. Aaron, the man-made rule to read your Bible every day is an excellent one. Can you please list, as comprehensively as you can, what you gain by obeying it? I mean, particularly in your relationship toward God and/or how God sees and views you when you obey or don’t obey this rule?
2. Anyone, about the slavery example, are there instances in which one could have a slave and be fulfilling the requirements of God better than if they refused to have a slave? I.e., what spiritual, Christ-like virtue is being portrayed in that rule (that slavery is wrong)?
3. Is it really possible to make a man-made rule that forces us to fulfill, or assures us that we are fulfilling, God’s law in our hearts (His law, to love him and love our neighbors)? Like, if a law cannot be made against love, joy, peace, long-suffering, etc., is it possible to make laws that enforce these things, not only in outward actions but in our inward beings (thoughts, intentions, motives, affections, etc)?
I really like #1; the comments I made were proscriptive, that is prescriptive. We start first with the obvious; the great number of agnostic/otherwise unbelieving professors of religion in our universities demonstrates clearly that reading the Bible every day does not save you—the German form critics come to mind in this regard, though I’d be pleasantly surprised if some of them did believe. So we dispense with the legalism argument right there. How do we make the argument, then? Well, my way is to say that nothing in the Bible requires you to talk with your wife—you are to listen to them with understanding, provide the marital comfort when they want it, and the like, but do you really have to talk to your wife and find out what makes her tick?
I speak facetiously here, of course; no sane man would do that. OK, then why do so many “Christians” neglect to hear Jesus out on what He wants through the reading of Scripture and prayer? So I would argue it’s a valid inference from the very nature of God—as One who reveals His Will in His Word. Or as we say in engineering, “read the manual”.
Regarding #2 and the issue of slavery, I’ve viewed the church’s response as primarily towards the slaveholders and the society that tolerates it, not the slaves themselves. Any church in a slavery-tolerating society needs to apply God’s Word regarding man-stealing, cruelty towards “servants” (“servus” is Latin for “slave”, by the way), and the like.
And toward the servants? that’s a lot harder. Are we talking debtor’s prisons for debts willingly contracted, or are we talking America’s peculiar institution? There probably is a point where the evils of the institution are so evil that churches might be justified operating an underground railroad a la Harriet Tubman. On another level, though, did the underground railroad harden the nation so that the Civil War became inevitable, and a Wilberforce bloodless emancipation impossible? I can’t really say.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Anne Sokol]I’ve been rolling this thread around mentally for a while, but I’m so out of it, I’m not sure I want to type out all my thoughts. But, I think I will start with some questions that trying to answer are very interesting even for me.
1. Aaron, the man-made rule to read your Bible every day is an excellent one. Can you please list, as comprehensively as you can, what you gain by obeying it? I mean, particularly in your relationship toward God and/or how God sees and views you when you obey or don’t obey this rule?
I don’t think this one counts as man-made… Josh 1.8, Psalm 1.2, many others. Though maybe it’s “more like a guideline, really.” :)
We obey because it’s right and God has told us He uses this (Php. 2:12 for example). Sometimes there are observable or detectable benefits, sometimes not. This is usually not the important question, because the results are not our concern.
But in general, 1 John 1:9 and context is helpful on this. While our standing in grace (Rom. 5.2), our union with Christ, our position as adoption children, etc., is not altered by our obedience or lack of it, God is actively pleased or displeased by our actions. Otherwise, what could 2 Cor. 5:9 possibly mean? (among other passages)
Also our actions bring Him glory or they do not… or perhaps do in varying degrees. Otherwise, what could 1 Cor. 10:31 possibly mean?
So pleasing Him and reflecting His glory are a couple of results… and they are plenty all by themselves! But we know there is more because God is work using our obedience to transform us.
[Anne Sokol] 2. Anyone, about the slavery example, are there instances in which one could have a slave and be fulfilling the requirements of God better than if they refused to have a slave? I.e., what spiritual, Christ-like virtue is being portrayed in that rule (that slavery is wrong)?
It is the virtue of doing right rather than wrong.
It’s true that looking at a person as a whole, it’s always possible to be failing in area 1, but thriving in areas 2 and 3. While someone else might be walking worthy in area 1 but not being obedient in 2 and 3. So if you plug “slavery” in as “area 1,” sure someone who does could, on the whole, be better than someone who doesn’t… all things considered.
But it doesn’t matter. Wrong things are still wrong regardless of “the person as a whole.” And right is always better than wrong… this is by definition.
[Anne Sokol] 3. Is it really possible to make a man-made rule that forces us to fulfill, or assures us that we are fulfilling, God’s law in our hearts (His law, to love him and love our neighbors)? Like, if a law cannot be made against love, joy, peace, long-suffering, etc., is it possible to make laws that enforce these things, not only in outward actions but in our inward beings (thoughts, intentions, motives, affections, etc)?
A rule does not enforce anything. It doesn’t even necessarily get enforced, though that’s often the case. We’re really just talking about obedience. God commands us to love Him, and this is, in fact His first rule (Matthew 22:37-40). But many “rules” are simply applications of Scripture, expressions of obedience in some specific way.
So, to put it another way, a “rule” in the sense of applied Scripture as an imperative or a prohibition of some sort—these are things people choose to live by or choose not to live by. They have no power to enforce. The power to enforce is something else… and the role of coercion is a completely different topic having to do with “powers that be” (to use the biblical phrase) and their legitimate spheres of authority and so on.
But maybe it helps to clarify what I’m not saying with all this: I am not saying that acts of superficial obedience with no faith, no devotion to Christ, and no prior justification does any substantial good. So several scenarios are possible…
- A faithless, non-justified person can conform to requirements thinking this is a means of justification… But this accomplishes nothing. (It’s better than his doing pure evil, but only in the sense of outcomes… people around him benefit from his living a “moral” lifestyle… and temporally he has some benefits, in terms of natural cause and effect…. but his standing with God is not helped one bit.)
- A believer—who is, of course, justified—can think that he is living the Christian life properly, and that God will transform him, if he rejoices in the gospel but, other than that, doesn’t practice any disciplines; he doesn’t believe he must strive, run the race with endurance, press toward the mark, diligently add virtue to his faith, beat down his body, exercise himself in godliness, and other biblical phrases.
He is nowhere near as bad off as the first guy, but he is in for surprises at the Second Coming. (1 John 2:28-29 comes to mind) - A believer, also justified, may think that though he came to be in Christ by faith alone, he must now do A, B, and C in order to remain justified, or he may think he never was justified and won’t be until he does A, or B, etc. This is what was happening in Galatia. In this case, the believer is still justified, but has seriously erred into legalism.
- A believer, justified as all believers are, may think that his position as God’s child, accepted in the Beloved, in Christ, etc., is fully accomplished and cannot be altered in any way, yet also believe that now, as a slave of Christ, he has duties, obligations, commitments to keep, a new lifestyle to live—and further believe that his obedience is graciously used by God as part of His transforming work. He may also understand that obedience to Christ means applying His commands to daily life in whatever conditions he finds himself in. … This believer would be correct.
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.
[Dan Miller]Aaron Blumer wrote:
I don’t believe that keeping 100% of the law 100% of the time would result in justification, even if someone could do it. So where Jesus tells His interlocutor “do this and you will live,” or something similar, I’m inclined to think He is not speaking of justification. Luke 10:28-29… in v.29 the man desires “to justify himself.” … which was the real problem.…
I have thought that Jesus is speaking here of the the Law and [failed] justification. That is, Jesus intends and accomplishes the “First use of the Law.” Remember that the question asked was, “25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?””
The guy wanted to know what HE had to do to gain eternal life. “Love God, Love your neighbor.” And the guy knows he can’t do it. He immediately starts trying to bring the neighbor part down to a level he thinks he can do.
Yes, I missed the “eternal life” reference in the context. I’m still not sure Jesus really intends to answer his question though. Jesus is often eliptical in response to questions because He sees past them to the person’s real problem. It’s really a lot of fun to read! In many cases He is clearly being nonresponsive in the sense of not going where the questioner wants at all. In other cases, it’s hard to tell for sure.
So I’m inclined to think that yes, He is using Law to expose the questioner’s true condition… but He is also not saying that if the guy really did keep all of the law, that would somehow cancel out his status as one “in Adam” rather than “in Christ” or cancel the guilt that goes with being a son of Adam. … which I don’t think you were saying either though I wasn’t sure earlier.
In some ways talk of keeping the whole law is sort of automatically nonsensical, like talking about square circles, because if a persion could keep the whole law he would not be the sort of being who really even needs to… and if he was the sort of being who desperately needed to keep the whole law to gain eternal life….he would already be the sort who cannot possibly do that. *shok* … and *WALL*
So it gets completely circular in hurry. It’s pretty much a rhetorical device … a way of helping people see that graciously credited righteousness is truly our only hope!
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 want to talk about this example of slave ownership, to demonstrate that rules are not really the point of what accomplishes God’s will on earth or in our lives.
Let’s say we live in Hebrew society a few 1000 years ago. I’m a Hebrew man. And I see my “neighbor” making a deal to indenture his daughter in order to get money to pay a debt.
Another man who knows this neighbor has just noted the situation and continued walking by. The man my neighbor is agreeing is not really a kind man either—he’s known for his cruelty even at times. So … I’m concerned for this child being indentured. I go over to my neighbor and indicate my interest in the transaction, and I’m told the price and years of her indenture-ship (slavery, we could say).
Rather than let the child be passed into the possession of this unkind man, I have the money to buy her myself, so my neighbor can have sufficient money to repay his debt. So I buy the girl for her certain years of service, having no desire to “own” her or disrespect her person; rather, out of respect to her person, I want to pay for her, so I can keep her free—even though she may end up living in my house with my children, etc., for these years.
Legally, I have bought a slave. But herein, I have also fulfilled the law of God— to love my neighbor as myself.
And considering the vast numbers of women and children in multiple forms of “slavery” today, we might do well to think about how we can live out the law (heart) of God towards them.
…. Will return later for #s 1 and 3 …
Faith sanctifies me, not my works.
This is what I didn’t understand for years and years. I had this idea that my maturity would be getting more and more advanced in doing christian exercises (so to speak), and God would be more and more pleased with me the more and more I achieved these things. I think this is normally kind of how we view sanctification. That it is a type of earning because it’s based on my behavior and achievements.
But I understand things a bit differently right now, and I will try to explain what, exactly, is different, in clear points so that it might be understandable.
I realized that Christ’s righteousness applied to me affects my every-day life, not just the day I will stand before God.
Christ is my sanctification. What does this mean?
Every law of God is too high for me to attain, and Christ attained it for me. This is my faith for today— and as the days go by, I must go deeper and deeper into this belief and into the love that arises to God in thanks for this.
Whatever “good work” I do, it never meets God’s standard. But I believe that Christ attained God’s standard of righteous living (sanctification) on my behalf, and my good deeds follow this.
For example:
Reading my Bible every day? REeding it through in a year? That is no where near what God’s law demands of me. I must perfectly believe God’s words, perfectly love God’s words, and perfectly do God’s words. I must meditate on them continually. I must value them more than any sum of money.
I cannot achieve this standard in this lifetime! However, Christ achieved it! He really did it! It’s is absolutely amazing what Christ did in perfectly living out God’s will toward His word.
Now, here I am. Today, the read your Bible every day is a popular man-made rule—in the pharisees day (before universal literacy and the copious amounts of easily published literature), they wore phylacteries to try and satisfy God’s standard. But did they believe, love and do it? They thought so.
What happens with this mistaken approach to sanctification is that is starts with me and my performance.
Here is perhaps what should be: Dear God, Your commands about Your Word are so high, so good, so right. So perfect! Thank you that Christ perfectly fulfilled Your desires towards Your Word. Thank you that He always believed Your Words and never doubted or questioned them. He built His entire life on your words! Never swerving from them. Thank You that He loved Your Words—and that means He loved You because You are the one who spoke them and who continually fulfills them! Dear God, thank You that in every single way, Christ obeyed and did Your Words.
Thank you, too, that he satisfied all this for me, too. And Lord, show me how, today, to live towards your words as Christ did. Lead me in believing, loving, and doing your words. Do your will in my life here. By Your Spirit in me, show me where I am not believing Your words, where I am not loving you because of your words, and where I need to live out obedience to your words. Make me a follower of Christ as I relate to your word.
OK, that’s the idea. And it might look like reading my bible every day. Or reading it 3 times a day. or reading it all day Saturday. or meditating on a verse or portion. or seeing and applying a new obedience. But those disciplines are merely tools— they are not sanctification (the achievement of Christ’s righteousness in me).
But that is one main thing I have changed in my approach to sanctification— that it’s not trying to follow helpful rules—that is one level, but it’s limited, accomplished pretty much by lowering God’s standards to some level we can keep (mostly).
that is why i say faith sanctifies me (the belief that Christ, for me, attained God’s standard) and not my works (which will never attain God’s standard of perfection in this life).
Two other things i won’t elaborate on— our works or disciplines can be useful for subduing our bodies and for serving others.
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (ESV2011, Phil 2:12-13)
Well, I’d agree that “rules are not the point.” They are, however a means… and even then, only one of them—a very important one. Any practical application we make of Scripture is really a rule by another name (though of course we often botch the process of interpretation/application and end up with a foolish rule… and often enough no attempt to apply Scripture is made at all.. even worse. But doing something badly isn’t an argument against the activity; it’s an argument against doing it badly.)
As for sactified by faith not works, in the NT it is quite clearly both-and not either-or.
If that isn’t the case, what does this passage mean?
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (ESV2011, Phil 2:12-13)
And why does Paul encourage faith working (usually in relation to “love” in the context)?
1 Thess 1:3 remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Thess. 1:11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power,
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.
One thing that comes to mind regarding Aaron’s comment is that perhaps a great portion of the trouble with a lot of our rules is that we adopt a rule in one setting, but try to impose it in all settings whether or not the logic works.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Aaron,
“Both…And” is probably right.
[Aaron Blumer]…Depends on what you mean by “means.” Cart-and-horse type problem? See James and works necessarily following faith.Well, I’d agree that “rules are not the point.” They are, however a means… and even then, only one of them—a very important one. Any practical application we make of Scripture is really a rule by another name (though of course we often botch the process of interpretation/application and end up with a foolish rule… and often enough no attempt to apply Scripture is made at all.. even worse. But doing something badly isn’t an argument against the activity; it’s an argument against doing it badly.)
…
At the end of this paragraph, you bring up “doing it badly” not being an argument against doing it. Right. But what modifications of thought are necessary for “doing it well”? I think you should contrast Colossians 2 and 3 and I think there you’ll find “doing it badly” contrasted with “doing it well.”
Are we free from the law? The answer is Yes and No. Can man-made rules benefit us or harm us? The answer is Yes and No.
Some notes from The 1689 Bapt Confession of Faith. And soon, I may post notes from Samuel Bolton’s book The True Bounds of Christian Freedom— he exactly addresses many of these issues.
From the section: The Law
Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expected in this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God’s approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace.
The aforementioned uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but they sweetly comply with it, as the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the will of man to do freely and cheerfully those things which the will of God, which is revealed in the law, requires to be done.
And from the section: Good Works:
When we have done all we can, we have only done our duty, and are still unprofitable servants. And in any case, in so far as our works are good they originate from the work of the Holy Spirit. Even then, the good works are so defiled by us, and so mixed with weakness and imperfection, that they could not survive the severity of God’s judgement.
Yet, quite apart from the fact that believers are accepted through Christ as individual souls, their good works are also accepted through Christ. It is not as though the believers are (in this life) wholly unblameable and unreprovable in God’s sight, but because He looks upon them in His Son, and is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although it is accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.
Discussion