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
I fail to see a problem with the blood pudding. The “rules” issued by the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 were not binding commandments. They were temporary, voluntary restraints on Christian liberty for the sake of unity between Jewish and Gentile believers. Eventually, all these issues were to be governed by New Covenant Law (commandments of Christ and His Apostles), not expedient temporary rules. How do I arrive at this understanding? By Paul’s treatment of meat offered to idols, which was included in these rules.
“But food will not commend us to God: we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.” (I Cor. 8:8) If the Acts 15 rules were Divine law, Paul could not have said this.
What Acts 15 does teach us is that some rules are acceptable and necessary for specific situations. In those situations, they should be: 1) Minimal. (4, not 40), and 2) Temporary.
Rules become problematic when they are numerous and permanent.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]I fail to see a problem with the blood pudding. The “rules” issued by the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 were not binding commandments. They were temporary, voluntary restraints on Christian liberty for the sake of unity between Jewish and Gentile believers. Eventually, all these issues were to be governed by New Covenant Law (commandments of Christ and His Apostles), not expedient temporary rules. How do I arrive at this understanding? By Paul’s treatment of meat offered to idols, which was included in these rules.
“But food will not commend us to God: we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.” (I Cor. 8:8) If the Acts 15 rules were Divine law, Paul could not have said this.
What Acts 15 does teach us is that some rules are acceptable and necessary for specific situations. In those situations, they should be: 1) Minimal. (4, not 40), and 2) Temporary.
Rules become problematic when they are numerous and permanent.
I would love to have this discussion with you on a different thread. But for now let’s not chase the rabbit.
I purposefully used Pastor James (you know, the guy who made the rule and was willingly enforcing it to the Jerusalem church and to every Gentile church as well) to keep us in the time frame of 1st century Christendom when we all agree THAT THE RULE HAD MEANING! And since the rule had meaning there must be an action/reaction scenario for when the rule is willfully disobeyed by those in any of the aforementioned churches.
So the discussion is back open: for meaningful rules that may apply only to a specific generation or a specific demographic/culture, what are the scenario options for willful disobedience?
Lee
Lee,
Do you eat steak that is cooked ‘rare’ or ‘medium’ done? If so, don’t you violate Acts 15 according to your exegesis?
Furthermore, are you on the same level of authority as the apostle James?
At this point, it seems like you are far more interested in getting someone to agree with you about your abuse of authority than you are in discussing the issue at hand.
"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
Another factor to consider is time. Mtt. 18 doesn’t give us a time frame between steps. I fear we want to be the Holy Spirit, and we give folks about 5 minutes between the first confrontation and the follow up with witnesses. Why not take a little time to teach and nurture and allow the Holy Spirit to guide and convict?
Here’s an example- a couple of days before my oldest son left for Army boot camp, he went out with some church friends, very full of himself as young men sometimes are, and kissed his girlfriend in front of them (and I’m not talking a peck on the cheek, ok?). The next day we were at the church putting my younger kids on the bus to go to camp, and the pastor brought us (my son and I) in for questioning. He demanded that my son admit that he was committing fornication or he would be disciplined out of the church. He had about 10 minutes to repent because the bus was leaving for camp. My husband was not called nor was I given any recourse. It was now or never. My son admitted that kissing his girlfriend in public was stupid and wrong, but would not admit to committing fornication with her. He was officially disciplined on the spot, the pastor got on the bus and left, and 2 days later my son left for Army boot camp, and the church was forbidden to contact him while he was gone. He’s been treated like a black sheep ever since.
Those kinds of scenarios repeated themselves several times while we were at that church- shoot first, and don’t bother with questions. We were unable to work things out with the leadership. My brethren, these things ought not to be.
Jay and Lee… the question of how congregations go about carrying out discipline is really a different topic. The “legalism” debate really has to do with whether discipline itself has value in reference to man-made applications.
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.
Jim, you used the term “rules for you”… I’ve argued earlier that even rules imposed on us by others have an important role in our spiritual growth. I’m interested in what you—and others—think of the argument. I’d like to see it probed for weakness.
In particular I argued along these lines…
- Good habits are part of good character
- For a Christian, good character is not really distinct from godliness
- Good habits are often developed through discipline imposed on us by others.
Let’s call that the habits argument, but the third point is kind of intertwined with another argument I’ll call the immaturity argument.
- When we’re immature, we do not know what is good for us as well as some others do
- We often discover what is good for us by doing it first, then understanding it later
- When someone who has that sort of relationship with us imposes good conduct (that we don’t yet understand) on us, this is a “rule for you” and it does contribute to our growth in grace (in this case, the grace is the person(s) God has brought into our lives…. much of the confusion on this subject seems to stem from the idea that if God does not do things directly in us, it isn’t grace. I find that thinking quite puzzling.)
- Examples…
- 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.
- Is it possible to do a believer “good” without contributing to his/her sanctification? Some seem to want to say “OK, these rules are helpful, but they don’t make you more spiritual/a better Christian.” Well, how exactly are they “helpful” then, I wonder?
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.
[Jay]Lee,
Do you eat steak that is cooked ‘rare’ or ‘medium’ done? If so, don’t you violate Acts 15 according to your exegesis?
Nonsense. If it was a matter of cooking all you would have is either cooked blood or uncooked blood. Death through butchering removes blood; strangling doesn’t.
[Jay] Furthermore, are you on the same level of authority as the apostle James?
Not sure where this is going. But when Scritpure confers authority to someone they have authority. You don’t have to like it, but pastors do have a certain amount of biblical authority in the church that does not require them to be an apostle.
[jay] At this point, it seems like you are far more interested in getting someone to agree with you about your abuse of authority than you are in discussing the issue at hand.
For a guy that has never met me you seem awfully sure of my motives. You’ll just have to trust me that I have no authority abuse issues going on at the current time, though I am highly motivated in applying scripture to current situations as scripture is intended to be applied. If that means exercising biblical authority, then so be it.
Lee
“Rules for you” amplified:
- First of all to reiterate, I see a need for reasonable institutional rules. Not to save … not to sanctify. But for organizational order. Previously I mentioned some examples of rules for the school, camp, or church
- Not mentioned earlier but agreement rules or covenant rules (think church covenant) are valuable. Eg. “we will endeavor to sustain the worship … meet the needs of … etc.”). These obviously don’t save or sanctify either but help define what a community is about.
- Parents can have rules for the children and most probably have many. My kids are long out of the house but we had house rules about: room cleanup … bedtimes … car use … tv usage … computer usage etc. Obviously house rules morph as a child grows and matures and as situations change. (As an example. We live in Plymouth MN. It is 36 square miles … 6 miles by 6 miles. My driving age children had to ask specific permission to drive outside of Plymouth. I enforced driving rules by keeping a daily mileage log of the car they drove.
- Couples can have rules and these do not save either. Kathee and I have some rules about notifying the other where we are and when we will return. Goes like this: working late? Call the other. It’s easy with cell phones. I might call my wife after leaving my brothers and say “I’m stopping at Gander Mtn and won’t be home for an hour”. We also have budgetary and spending rules (these are pretty broad and not obnoxious). We each have an annual clothing budget that we track with software. And we have accountability built in in that we have a budgetary meeting (20 min) where we review the previous week’s purchases and discuss upcoming non-recurring projects (eg … for me … replace outside lighting fixture on the garage). As an aside … since Kathee sees (not just “sees” but “knows” (shared logons to financial accounts) all of my own finances, there is no way I could purchase a whore (as a Christian worker we know was able to do and hide from his wife). So there is financial AND time accountability. This is mutual and covenantal.
- I am the head of my house. No man tells my wife what to wear or not wear. With the children, I set the rules & boundaries with them (as an example I permitted them to view certain movies (eg …. “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” My boys wanted to see it and I allowed them.)
- I don’t see a need for a Pastor to set rules for me (aside from the standard institutional rules mentioned earlier … eg … public reading of the Scriptures … use this standard version).
- When I was a Pastor I did not set rules for others. Although I can think of a time when I told an adult man that I thought going to a certain R rated movie was not wise.
- Concluding: The process of sanctification is advanced by:
- The Word of God: “He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word” (Ephesians 5:27) AND
- The Holy Spirit
I’ve been out of the vocational ministry for 16 years and I’ve never had a pastor impose a rule on my life. I’ve been in good churches with good pastors and never has one of them personally directed me with a rule. The Word of God is enough!
Lee, I’m done with engaging you on this topic. We disagree, and we disagree pretty strongly; I don’t think you’re engaging my point and I’m not interested in getting into a debate over whether or not James, butchering, jewelry, or other things are appropriate for believers, so I think that further discussions would be pointless. I may weigh in again on the thread, but I need to be moving along from the conversation that you want to have.
"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
[Aaron Blumer]
Is it possible to do a believer “good” without contributing to his/her sanctification? Some seem to want to say “OK, these rules are helpful, but they don’t make you more spiritual/a better Christian.” Well, how exactly are they “helpful” then, I wonder?
Encouraging discipline in a life is both good and helpful but rules by themselves do not work to make someone a better, more spiritual Christian. How does this work, you ask?
Consider AA, or the military. Both of those organizations have helped “straighten people out” by giving them, order, discipline, support, etc., but I think we would all agree that these organizations do not make one a better Christian. Often, they do help one be a “better person,” at least as the world sees it, but the discipline is something that will carry over into the Christian life if someone that already has it is converted.
Consider Paul. He probably wouldn’t have been the same strong witness he was, and as disciplined or well-studied without his background as a Pharisee. Did being a Pharisee make him more spiritual? Not at all, he still needed Jesus, and the Pharisees were called “whitewashed tombs” by Jesus, but Paul’s background made him ideal for the way God wanted to use him, and I’d argue that all those rules and discipline he had previously been under were *very* helpful.
Dave Barnhart
[Jay]Lee, I’m done with engaging you on this topic. We disagree, and we disagree pretty strongly; I don’t think you’re engaging my point and I’m not interested in getting into a debate over whether or not James, butchering, jewelry, or other things are appropriate for believers, so I think that further discussions would be pointless. I may weigh in again on the thread, but I need to be moving along from the conversation that you want to have.
I’m not sure we’ve been discussing the same topic. Maybe Aaron is right and it has broken down into personal jabs. Surely not my intention, but my apology is sincere if that be so.
All rabbit trails aside, the big picture is still the big picture. Scripture communicates truth in at least 5 ways: by doctrine, by command, by principle, through precedent, and by illustration. All Scripture is truth, and no one way of communicating is more or less true than another. However, a principle is not going to be as verbally precise as a command, etc., and that is on purpose.
Specifically, the absolute necessity of keeping idolatry and all its tentacles out of the church and the lives of individual believers is emphasized throughout the NT. Scripture recognizes the changing nature of idolatry, its accompanying idols, and those things of common society that identify with the prevalent idolatries of those societies/cultures. That changing nature is likely the very reason that Scripture communicates mostly through principle and illustration how to react to idolatry in all its forms, citing precedent for the reason (I Cor. 10:1-13).
It is also that changing nature that necessitates specific gifting to individuals within the church, the body of Christ. Discernment, wisdom, knowledge, and such, are not figments of our imaginations but inspired statements of Scripture of how Christ ordered His church. It was His plan that all men not be equally gifted. It is those so gifted who are responsible before God and His church to utilize their Holy Spirit gifting for His purposes.
A believer, gifted by the Holy Spirit, with wisdom or discernment that can take the principles of Scripture and make specific application (call them rules if you wish) for the health of the entire body of Christ or the local assembly is being spiritually responsible, not tyrannical. The weight of the NT, beginning in Acts and continuing through the epistles, shows it to be such.
Lee
[dcbii]…Consider Paul. He probably wouldn’t have been the same strong witness he was, and as disciplined or well-studied without his background as a Pharisee. Did being a Pharisee make him more spiritual? Not at all, he still needed Jesus, and the Pharisees were called “whitewashed tombs” by Jesus, but Paul’s background made him ideal for the way God wanted to use him, and I’d argue that all those rules and discipline he had previously been under were *very* helpful.
I think I’d think pretty carefully before continuing down this path. Surmising has its place, but pre-conversion discipline in lieu of Holy Spirit gifting as a significant source of his ability and spiritual productiveness is a dangerous place to go.
Lee
[Lee]Well, yes, if I had said “in lieu of,” then we would have a problem. But a believer’s *whole life* is subject to God’s will and part of God’s plan. I think Paul is a great example, but we’ve all seen lesser examples of people God has saved later in life and their experiences prior to salvation were greatly used of God to give them an opening, provide them with skills, etc.None of this is to say God can’t greatly use someone with what we see as *no* earthly skills at all, but that person’s life is again, all a part of God’s plan, and he uses someone (and prepares them) how he sees fit. Even Paul counted everything he would previously count as gain to be loss for Christ, but Paul’s education (“Canst thou speak Greek?”) was used to give him an opening he would not otherwise have had, so the time he spent learning it, while not being at all sanctifying, and did not in any way give him any “points” with God, was not a waste when used by God.Back to the original question I was answering, i.e. “How can discipline be helpful but not spiritually productive,” even if you don’t take the life of the apostle Paul as instructive in this question, I think there’s no doubt that God can and does use people who are previously disciplined, and that discipline is useful to them in their life, but may have been acquired before it had any spiritual benefit.And more to the point, I seem to remember in the past Aaron arguing that being disciplined and moral in lifestyle as a non-Christian was still better than being dissolute. That “betterness” certainly has no spiritual benefit apart from conversion.I think I’d think pretty carefully before continuing down this path. Surmising has its place, but pre-conversion discipline in lieu of Holy Spirit gifting as a significant source of his ability and spiritual productiveness is a dangerous place to go.
Dave Barnhart
I’m not really sure how this all works, but when I read passages like Romans 8:27-30, it certainly seems like God can and does use all experiences in life (good and bad) to fulfill His plan in making us just like Jesus. That would include everything from prenatal health risks and miscarriages to our own deaths. There are no ‘accidents’ with God, and he uses each and every incident to bring us to Christlikeness. So the discipline learned by Paul as a Pharisee would not be exempt, although it could certainly be a source of temptation to return to legalism after his salvific experience.
I do disagree with Aaron that being ‘disciplined’ and ‘moral’ pre-salvation (to borrow Dave’s paraphrasing) is better than moral dissolution. That seems to be the argument Paul makes in Romans 2. I would argue, actually, that those qualities are worse because they breed smugness, self-righteousness, or self-reliance. It isn’t until a person is totally broken due to their sin that they can recognize their need for a Savior (Luke 15:11-21, 18:13-14). It’s also why the pharisees and scribes had such a hard time recognizing Jesus as Messiah/Christ (Luke 5:27-32).
"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
Are we agreed that not sinning is always better than sinning?
To me this is inherent in the definition of sin. And if it’s true, then another proposition is also true: moral behavior (pre conversion or not) is always better than immoral behavior.
But that’s really a side issue.
Dave commented…
Encouraging discipline in a life is both good and helpful but rules by themselves do not work to make someone a better, more spiritual Christian. How does this work, you ask?
Consider AA, or the military. Both of those organizations have helped “straighten people out” by giving them, order, discipline, support, etc., but I think we would all agree that these organizations do not make one a better Christian. Often, they do help one be a “better person,” at least as the world sees it, but the discipline is something that will carry over into the Christian life if someone that already has it is converted.
Might help here to talk about the difference between common grace vs. redemptive grace.
But I have to run. The key question here is: what does the experience of the unregenerate prove about the value of personal discipline in the life of a person who is a new creation?
Want to point out too that 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’ve seen all kinds of reasons why different kinds of administrative and identification rules are “useful,” coupled w/the assertion that they do not sanctify. But what about rules like those I posted at the top of the thread? What about rules we develop in order to govern our lives by Scripture?
I have yet to see how it is possible that these do not contribute to sanctification since they are really nothing more than simple obedience.
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.
Discussion