One Way Love: An Antidote to Legalism?

[GoldenEagle]

 

 

I mean, if you read that adulterers won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, if you are a womanizer, you might get scared and stop cheating?  We can't have that.  That would be legalism, and performance based salvation.  You might have a drunk who reads about how drunkards won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  They might get scared and stop drinking? 

 

 

Nope.  Fear is not an impediment to sin.  I know sinners who understand that they are going to hell, but that realization doesn’t serve as any kind of motivation to stop sinning.  The love sin more than they love the truth.  They know the truth and they understand that their eternal future is at stake, but they have rejected the truth because sin is more attractive.

 

 

 

 

So you're saying that all sinners have no fear of eternal damnation. I find that hard to believe. Especially since the bible teaches just the opposite. 

 

I always viewed sinners who don't believe in Jesus as being rebels thinking they had no need for a Savior? (hearing the truth of God's Word but not believing)

Or perhaps those who don't believe might also think there simply is no God so there is no need to fear... (ignoring the truth of God's Word)

[GoldenEagle]

 

 

 

In a nutshell, here is how I take this guy's doctrine.  Lets suppose someone comes here and asks if it is wrong to do something, anything?  I will use adultery as an example.  The legalist would tell them it is a sin that will keep them out of heaven, but the enlightened people of today would point out we are no longer under law but grace.  As such, it is technically wrong, but don't sweat it.  Our salvation isn't based on how we live.  We can't do anything to lose it, and it is heresy to suggest otherwise.  Everyone sins, so if your sin is adultery, it is no big deal.  God's grace is sufficient.  Yes, you might lose a crown, or you might get an STD or something like that, but your soul is safe. 

 

 

Sunds like you're wanting to discuss the idea of OSAS. There are a few threads on that. Please, let's stick to the OP discussion. Here's a few suggestions or you could start your own...

 

 

 

 

Like it or not, OSAS is part of the point of your article.  It goes hand in hand.  Those who believe that behavior plays a part in remaining saved reject OSAS and those who believe behavior plays no part in remaining saved accept OSAS.  That is as much where the disagreements lie as anything else.  If I am not mistaken, you are part of a church that believes in OSAS?  I am not.  As such, you begin with that difference, and it naturally leads to the conclusion by one person that following laws have nothing to do with our security in Jesus, and the other person disagrees. 

 

Actually I grew up being taught OSAS. However, I believe that Scripture has valid arguments for both views.

Please explain this further specifically by quoting the OP: "OSAS is part of the point of your article." 

 

Just so I understand what you're saying: "it naturally leads to the conclusion by one person that following laws have nothing to do with our security in Jesus, and the other person disagrees."

Are you saying that obedience to the law is a requirement for salvation? Please clarify.

 

God bless,

GE

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

You can start at 1 Corinthians 6:9,10.  Paul gives us a list of sins that will keep us from inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven. 

 

Okay I suppose 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 is the reference to "how certain sins will keep you out of the Kingdom of Heaven"

Let's look at the passage in context which has to do with the conduct of Believers... The preceeding verses have to do with taking matters to the world in lawsuits ( verses 1-6). I'd bring attention to verse 11 which I believe clarifies the context for which the Holy Spirit through paul gave us verses 9 and 10.

 

<snip>

 

I believe that verses 9-10 should read in the context of verse 11 which shows that some were living unrighteously but they were washed, sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Meaning they turned away from these sins. How do you view this passage in context?

 

Right, but are you going to tell me that there are no professing Christians that do these things?  Are you going to tell me it is impossible for Christians to do these things?  What happens if they do?  Will they inherit the Kingdom of God, even though the Bible says they won't?  Where is the assurance in that?  What happens if a Christian becomes a drunkard because while going through hard times, they turn to the bottle?  What if they die in that state?  Were they never really saved?  This doctrine doesn't work.  It might for some, but there are legalists that live right too.  Legalism in itself isn't the issue.  It doesn't really matter what the motivations are.  You are either following the Bible or you are not? 

 

 

I would have serious reservations about saying that it doesn't matter WHY one follows the Bible or not. Perhaps this is the disconnect brother?

The Jews follow the law but the law without Messiah (Jesus) only condemns them.

 

A Christian is saved by God through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. There is sanctification and justification. The RESULT is the desire to follow God's law.

 

In other words good works ("living right") is a RESULT of salvation not a requirement for salvation.

Christians (under God's grace) are motivated by love while those who don't believe are motivated solely by fear (under God's justice).

The biggest issue I think that we can't agree upon is that it is possible to live perfect lives as Believers this side of heaven. Is this the case?

When we as Christians fall down (into temptation) God is good, gracious, merciful, slow to anger to pick us up (not because of anything we've done but because of what Jesus has done FOR us.)

 

What do you think?

 

I don't think it is quite as simple as that?  Whether you are speaking of Bill Gothard or the man who wrote this article, neither are rejecting Jesus, as most of the Jews have done. 

 

You said something I found very interesting.  You said good works is a result of salvation, not a requirement for salvation.  I agree it is a result of salvation, but how can you say it is not a requirement for salvation when you have a list of sins in front of you that will keep you from inheriting the Kingdom of God?  Are you saying that 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 doesn't mean what it says?  Are you saying you aren't required to be faithful to your wife to be a Christian, or at least to remain a Christian?  Are you saying a person can be a womanizer if he wants and be saved?  If the man does cheat, are you saying he isn't really saved?  No matter how you phrase things, the results are the same.   

 

1.  An adulterer won't inherit the Kingdom of God.

2.  One man is a Christian and doesn't commit adultery as a result of his faith, so he is fine.

3.  One man is a Christian and doesn't commit adultery out of fear of not inheriting the Kingdom of God, so he is fine.

4.  One man is a Christian and commits adultery because he realizes he is saved by faith and not under the law.  He is not fine, and those on your side of this argument would say he was never really saved.

5.  One man is a Christian and commits adultery because he is overcome by lust, but is fearful of judgment.  He is not fine, but because he is fearful of hell for breaking God's laws, those on your side would say he is a legalist who is in trouble because he isn't capable of living right.  He needs grace.

 

Bottom line is that the sin of adultery will keep you out of heaven, so it doesn't matter what your belief system is with regard to legalism.  Some keep the law out of fear and some because it is the right thing to do.  Some break the law with no fear and some break the law while scared to death, but both are hell bound.  The only thing I see taking place here is one person feels he is superior to the other because of why he follows scripture. 

 

Now, lets look at what you said about God's mercy.  Lets take the guy who has been a Christian for years, and falls into an affair with his secretary.  Can he continue in that affair and inherit the Kingdom of God?  Would you be willing to judge that man and say he was never saved, because in context, the passage says, "such were some of you," in past tense?  If the guy was born again, would you say it was impossible for him to cheat because he is a new creature in Christ, and Christians cannot sin?  I see all kinds of contradictions here. 

[Guest shiloh357]

The problem with trying to define legalism is that legalism isnt a biblical term.  There is no word for it in the Bible.  What the Bible teaches that no one is saved by good works. There is nothing redemptive about good works.  Our good works will be rewarded but they don't offer any insurance against hell.  There appears that some people are taking what Paul is saying about rewards for service and confusing them with salvation which is a free gift and has absolutely nothing to do with good works in terms of how salvation is obtained or how it is kept.

[Guest Butero]

 

 

Yes, I will clarify those comments.  What I mean when I say we must behave in a certain way to make it to heaven, is that we must refuse to commit sins the Bible says will keep us out of heaven, like being a drunkard for instance.  The Bible says a drunkard won't inherit the Kingdom of God, so if I want to make it to heaven, I have to refuse to drink wherein is excess.  You can question whether or not a single instance of becoming drunk makes a drunkard, but that is not the point.  I will even concede it may not mean that?  I am saying I can't behave as Otis, the town drunk on Andy Griffith and make it to heaven. 

 

Thanks for the clarification brother.

The Bible also says:

 

Matthew 12:31-32

³¹ Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. ³² And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

 

Mark 3:28-30

²⁸ “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, ²⁹ but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— ³⁰ for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”

As I understand it the only sin that will not be forgiven is the rejection of the testimony of Holy Spirit that Jesus the Son of God is the way, the truth, and the life - that nobody can come to God except through Jesus.

 

If God were to see fit to save Otis either during his life or at the end of his life how would that affect you and me? We cannot be responsible for others actions good or bad I believe.

2 Corinthians 5:10

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

Jesus said when Peter was so concerned about what would happen to John...

 

John 21:22

Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!”

 

Your thoughts?

God bless,

GE

 

Of course forgiveness is available if you confess your sins and repent, but not while you are continually living in sin.  I have a different view of what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is than you.  I believe it is attributing the works of God to the devil, not a rejection of the testimony of the Holy Spirit.  We debated that in another thread. 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

 

I mean, if you read that adulterers won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, if you are a womanizer, you might get scared and stop cheating?  We can't have that.  That would be legalism, and performance based salvation.  You might have a drunk who reads about how drunkards won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  They might get scared and stop drinking? 

 

 

Nope.  Fear is not an impediment to sin.  I know sinners who understand that they are going to hell, but that realization doesn’t serve as any kind of motivation to stop sinning.  The love sin more than they love the truth.  They know the truth and they understand that their eternal future is at stake, but they have rejected the truth because sin is more attractive.

 

 

 

 

So you're saying that all sinners have no fear of eternal damnation. I find that hard to believe. Especially since the bible teaches just the opposite. 

 

I don't believe that either Man.  I had someone try to break into my house a couple of years ago, but I had an alarm system in place.  They wanted to rob me, but when the alarm went off, the fear of going to jail caused them to flee.  I don't care why they failed to steal from me, but just that they failed.  Their heart wasn't my concern, but the security of my possessions.  There are many people that don't steal because they know it is wrong and they won't do it for that reason alone, but there are others who would steal if it wasn't for the threat of prison. 

 

That is not really an adequate analogy. It doesn't really compare, because many don't see going to hell as an immediate consequence.  There are who people don't think they are dying tomorrow.  And because they love sin more than they fear God, and they feel no immediate alarm. 

 

And even if someone is scared into living right, it doesn't mean that they a follower of Jesus.  If the motivation for living right is fear that I have to earn God's favor by right livig in order to go to heaven, my faith is placed in my own ability to obey God and not in the grace offered by God as a result of Jesus' finished work on the cross.

 

The Bible never presents fear of hell as the the motivation for serving God.

 

I believe that when Jesus gave us the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, as well as the warning it was better to lose a limb or an eye than to enter hell, it was presenting fear as a motivation to live right.  I just don't think everyone does things for the same reasons.  Some live right out of fear and some just because it is not in them to sin.  Some who live right are just good moral people who don't know Jesus and some who are scared of hell don't know Jesus.  There is no one size fits all.  Everyone is motivated by different things.

[Guest Butero]

 

 

By those on the other side, I mean those who attack legalism.  Now, lets look to the definitions of legalism.  Going by my definition that legalism is strict adherence to the laws of God, are you saying you think that kind of legalism is ok?  If you are, perhaps we aren't that far apart? 

 

 

See the "other side" as you claim "attacks" legalism in the form of the definition I presented... I believe you're defending something that perhaps is not at all what Christians and even non-Chrisitans concern is? So I think in essence you might be arguing against something people are indeed not attacking...

My issue with this definition of legalism is that I don't believe anyone can 100% adhere to the laws of God this side of eternity. Everyone is sinful and we all fall short this side of eternity.

I wouldn't use the term legalist in this manner because the common use of the word today is more along the lines of what I presented I believe: A) "excessive adherence to law or formula" and/or B) "dependence on moral law rather than on personal religious faith."

I wouldn't have a problem with the definition you propose as "strict adherence to the laws of God" to be called something to extent of being pious or devoted to God...

 

This would be a major break through in our discussions I believe.

What do you think?

 

God bless,

GE

 

I don't think we can follow God's laws 100 percent either.  We can do our best, and should, but we all have evil thoughts that defile.  We all need grace.  The issue to me is whether or not you can be a Christian and continue to commit obvious willful transgressions like cheating on our spouse or being a drunkard? 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

 

In a nutshell, here is how I take this guy's doctrine.  Lets suppose someone comes here and asks if it is wrong to do something, anything?  I will use adultery as an example.  The legalist would tell them it is a sin that will keep them out of heaven, but the enlightened people of today would point out we are no longer under law but grace.  As such, it is technically wrong, but don't sweat it.  Our salvation isn't based on how we live.  We can't do anything to lose it, and it is heresy to suggest otherwise.  Everyone sins, so if your sin is adultery, it is no big deal.  God's grace is sufficient.  Yes, you might lose a crown, or you might get an STD or something like that, but your soul is safe. 

 

 

Sunds like you're wanting to discuss the idea of OSAS. There are a few threads on that. Please, let's stick to the OP discussion. Here's a few suggestions or you could start your own...

 

 

 

 

Like it or not, OSAS is part of the point of your article.  It goes hand in hand.  Those who believe that behavior plays a part in remaining saved reject OSAS and those who believe behavior plays no part in remaining saved accept OSAS.  That is as much where the disagreements lie as anything else.  If I am not mistaken, you are part of a church that believes in OSAS?  I am not.  As such, you begin with that difference, and it naturally leads to the conclusion by one person that following laws have nothing to do with our security in Jesus, and the other person disagrees. 

 

Actually I grew up being taught OSAS. However, I believe that Scripture has valid arguments for both views.

Please explain this further specifically by quoting the OP: "OSAS is part of the point of your article." 

 

Just so I understand what you're saying: "it naturally leads to the conclusion by one person that following laws have nothing to do with our security in Jesus, and the other person disagrees."

Are you saying that obedience to the law is a requirement for salvation? Please clarify.

 

God bless,

GE

 

I am saying that once you are saved, it is a requirement you follow God's laws.  How can it be otherwise, given what it says in passages like the one in 1 Corinthians 6:9,10?  You can claim you are not committing adultery because of faith rather than as a requirement, but when you know this sin will keep you out of heaven, the result is you are having to obey a law to remain saved.  If I know that I can't be a drunkard and make it to heaven, I can claim I am staying sober as a result of faith, but I am still required to be sober to make it to heaven.  I see this as terminology more than anything when you claim it is not a requirement but a result of salvation.  If you will go to hell for doing certain things, it is a requirement you don't do them. 

[alphaparticle]

 I think there are genuine believers who do pretty bad things. There's an example in 1 Cor 5

 

1 cor 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.

 

This sounds pretty bad.

 

1 cor 5:5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

 

I think there are likely a couple different ways to view this, but it seems clear that the church won't tolerate his presence among them while he is engaging in this particular sin. Alright. Note, nowhere did Paul say he wasn't a believer (the intervening verses do not suggest this). But the second thing is Paul's admonishment to cash him out for 'the destruction of the flesh' and there is the *expectation* that he will be saved, despite engaging in sexual relations with his father's wife. He is punished in the flesh, sure, but still saved.

 

The thing about these passages is, Paul explicitly condemns and mourns the actions of this man. He nowhere minimizes the sinfulness or seriousness of this- but also nowhere does he say that "oh well I guess he's not really a believer". It's serious, it sounds like this person likely suffered terrible consequences, but it also sounds like he was saved.

[Guest Butero]

 I think there are genuine believers who do pretty bad things. There's an example in 1 Cor 5

 

1 cor 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.

 

This sounds pretty bad.

 

1 cor 5:5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

 

I think there are likely a couple different ways to view this, but it seems clear that the church won't tolerate his presence among them while he is engaging in this particular sin. Alright. Note, nowhere did Paul say he wasn't a believer (the intervening verses do not suggest this). But the second thing is Paul's admonishment to cash him out for 'the destruction of the flesh' and there is the *expectation* that he will be saved, despite engaging in sexual relations with his father's wife. He is punished in the flesh, sure, but still saved.

 

The thing about these passages is, Paul explicitly condemns and mourns the actions of this man. He nowhere minimizes the sinfulness or seriousness of this- but also nowhere does he say that "oh well I guess he's not really a believer". It's serious, it sounds like this person likely suffered terrible consequences, but it also sounds like he was saved.

But given the fact Paul says that adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of God, he has already condemned them to hell if they fail to repent.  I believe he is saying that by putting them out of the church, the hope is they will eventually return to the Lord and ultimately be saved.  I don't believe he is saying they will get to heaven while still in adultery, or he would have contradicted 1 Corinthians 6:9.