legalizing in the modern church

[mycorrhiza]

Romans 13:1-7 says that you're supposed to abide the laws set by the government, because every government is put there by God. Every authority is the work of God according to this passage.

But you can be a Christian and still reject Paul.

 

[Rocky S]

Romans 13:1-7 says that you're supposed to abide the laws set by the government, because every government is put there by God. Every authority is the work of God according to this passage.

But you can be a Christian and still reject Paul.

what??

 

[Rocky S]

So do you believe that you can sin and commit adultery as long as you "believe in Jesus's "finished work"? Apparently you must think Paul is pretty "evil" since he says similarly that you have to actually still be a good person and obey a certain guideline.


Paul also said that unrepentant fornicators won't enter the Kingdom. Or people that are even just angry. Is that legalism? Is Paul denying the finished work on the cross? Is Paul saying that justification involves obedience to some standard of action beyond claiming to "believe on" Christ?

So the idea that you have to actually obey the commandments like Jesus taught is evil? Dang Jesus was an evil guy!

Why does 1 Peter say that Salvation is something you "grow into"? Why does Paul say to "work out your salvation in fear and trembling"? Apparently there's more to your salvation involved than just believing in "Christ's finished work". What's "evil" is thinking you think can totally ignore everything Jesus says about your works and behavior being important and just go by a few cherry picked verses that ultimately deny 99% of the things he taught, that would be completely "denying" Jesus.

Hebrews 10:26 says that no more sacrifice remains for one who "sins" after receiving knowledge of the truth. The context, in relation to the rest of the Chapter, is not saying that you don't have to do anything, it's saying that you have no more leniency, the sacrifice does not cover your future sins. And what is the definition of "Sin"? 1 John 3:4 is quite clear, "Lawlessness". Who did Jesus say would be rejected in Matthew 7:22-23? "Doers of Lawlessness", that would include all those who call Jesus "Lord" but think that they can ignore obeying what he actually teaches from a Jewish prophet-Messiah perspective, and that's the full compliance with the Law.

What is the point of a sacrifice if you're going to continue to sin? Do you think Christ gives you a free pass to sin? If not, why not? What is the consequence of willful sinning? Nothing?

You did not really read my reply did you. I gave two extremes. I quoted Paul and then you made accusation that I did not state. And why do you discredit Paul anyway? I have always wondered that about you.

 

[Shermana]

You did not really read my reply did you. I gave two extremes. I quoted Paul and then you made accusation that I did not state. And why do you discredit Paul anyway? I have always wondered that about you.

You quoted Paul? You resort to lying about what you said when you're put in a plae that challenges what you said? And then you totally ignore the important questions too? It's okay, most people who believe in your doctrine totally ignore the questions when the subject goes like this. Gseeker is another notch on this wall as well, it's amazing how when the questions get tough, the questions go unanswered. So instead of saying that I didn't read your reply because I challenge it and instead of saying you quoted Paul when you did in fact not, you ask me why I discredit Paul and you state that I made an accusation you did not state? No, I asked questions. Try again. You did not quote Paul, if you did quote Paul and I missed it, repeat. Otherwise, you are now blatantly resorting to lying about what you said. If you need me to list my questions and counter reply in numeric list to make it easier, that'd be great. Don't just accuse someone of not reading your reply and "accusing you of someone you didn't state" when they actually ask questions abut what you said. Personally I'll just take it as a hostile refusal to address critical rebuttals because they pose a problem in your claims.

Is this your idea of "quoting Paul"?

Like Paul said if you seek to be justified by the law you are fallen from grace.

That's not quoting Paul. Feel free to get the exact quote where Paul says you are "fallen from grace."

Unlike you, I actually quoted Paul. What you did was attempt to "paraphrase him". Did you provide an actual quote? Would you like to try actually addressing anything I brought up or are you content to add another notch to my wall of anti-works "Christians" who hostily refuse to answer the questions and dodge important criticisms?

As for why I discredit Paul, it's a long story which I have addressed in numerous threads, it's the same reason the early Nazarenes and Ebionites rejected him. If you want to debate Paul vs Jesus we can start yet another thread on that issue and go over it in detail. But then again, this thread could technically be good grounds to bring up the debate about the Law vs. "Grace" yet again. But either way, I asked you simple questions about what Paul said, and unlike you, I actually gave quotes by Paul, probably quotes you're not used to because they're not often addressed by the anti-works crowd. Would you like to try actually addressing what I said about what he said?

If you can't handle simple questions, just say "I don't feel like answering your question". If you don't want to debate, stick to the DIRs.

 

[gseeker]

You quoted Paul? You resort to lying about what you said when you're put in a plae that challenges what you said? And then you totally ignore the important questions too? It's okay, most people who believe in your doctrine totally ignore the questions when the subject goes like this. Gseeker is another notch on this wall as well, it's amazing how when the questions get tough, the questions go unanswered. So instead of saying that I didn't read your reply because I challenge it and instead of saying you quoted Paul when you did in fact not, you ask me why I discredit Paul and you state that I made an accusation you did not state? No, I asked questions. Try again. You did not quote Paul, if you did quote Paul and I missed it, repeat. Otherwise, you are now blatantly resorting to lying about what you said. If you need me to list my questions and counter reply in numeric list to make it easier, that'd be great. Don't just accuse someone of not reading your reply and "accusing you of someone you didn't state" when they actually ask questions abut what you said. Personally I'll just take it as a hostile refusal to address critical rebuttals because they pose a problem in your claims.

Is this your idea of "quoting Paul"?

That's not quoting Paul. Feel free to get the exact quote where Paul says you are "fallen from grace."

Unlike you, I actually quoted Paul. What you did was attempt to "paraphrase him". Did you provide an actual quote? Would you like to try actually addressing anything I brought up or are you content to add another notch to my wall of anti-works "Christians" who hostily refuse to answer the questions and dodge important criticisms?

As for why I discredit Paul, it's a long story which I have addressed in numerous threads, it's the same reason the early Nazarenes and Ebionites rejected him. If you want to debate Paul vs Jesus we can start yet another thread on that issue and go over it in detail. But then again, this thread could technically be good grounds to bring up the debate about the Law vs. "Grace" yet again. But either way, I asked you simple questions about what Paul said, and unlike you, I actually gave quotes by Paul, probably quotes you're not used to because they're not often addressed by the anti-works crowd. Would you like to try actually addressing what I said about what he said?

If you can't handle simple questions, just say "I don't feel like answering your question". If you don't want to debate, stick to the DIRs.

Faith without works is dead, we are not trying to arge that what we are saying is that works will not get you eternal life the new testament mentions that multiple times even through the very words of Christ. Trying to work your way to heaven isn't realistic that is the reason Christ died!

 

[Shermana]

I retract in saying Rocky didn't quote Paul, he technically did. Either way, Galatians 5:4 is one of the most critical verses that prove that Paul was teaching something totally contradictory than what the Jerusalem Church under James was teaching.

And if faith without works is dead, what are these "Works" exactly and what role do they play? What is dead faith? He said that such faith "Does not save". Therefore, faith without "works" "Does not save". So what does that mean? What kind of works therefore do save according to James? What specifically? Even in Luther's time it was argued that these "works" were in fact "Works of the Law", only recently did this phrase even come to mean something other than adherence to Mosaic Law. Ultimately James says that faith without obedience to the Mosaic Law is dead according to the traditional interpretation.


Jesus did in fact say you must "Strive" (take pains, "aganizo") to "enter the narrow gate" and that "many will be called but few will be chosen". To say that working your way to heaven is ridiculous and goes against Christ's mission negates everything he taught about how to enter the Kingdom, and treats his sacrifice as an excuse to break any law you want, 1 John 3:4 quite explicitly explains that Sin is Lawlessness, future sins are not atoned for, only past sins. (Hebrews 10:26).

Once again, why did Paul say that unrepentant fornicators won't enter the Kingdom? Obviously, those who continue to fornicate aren't truly saved by Paul's own words, whether I agree with Paul on everything or not. That is definitely a "legalist" works-based salvation if bad works prohibit you even the slightest.

 

[gseeker]

I retract in saying Rocky didn't quote Paul, he technically did. Either way, Galatians 5:4 is one of the most critical verses that prove that Paul was teaching something totally contradictory than what the Jerusalem Church under James was teaching.

And if faith without works is dead, what are these "Works" exactly and what role do they play? What is dead faith? He said that such faith "Does not save". Therefore, faith without "works" "Does not save". So what does that mean? What kind of works therefore do save according to James? What specifically? Even in Luther's time it was argued that these "works" were in fact "Works of the Law", only recently did this phrase even come to mean something other than adherence to Mosaic Law. Ultimately James says that faith without obedience to the Mosaic Law is dead according to the traditional interpretation.


Jesus did in fact say you must "Strive" (take pains, "aganizo") to "enter the narrow gate" and that "many will be called but few will be chosen". To say that working your way to heaven is ridiculous and goes against Christ's mission negates everything he taught about how to enter the Kingdom, and treats his sacrifice as an excuse to break any law you want, 1 John 3:4 quite explicitly explains that Sin is Lawlessness, future sins are not atoned for, only past sins. (Hebrews 10:26).

If you love god you will obey God and live for God. So you abstain from sin not to achieve salvation, that is provided through the sacrifice of Christ and if you do lose your focus and sin Christ is faithful to forgive. The idea is not to live for the law but to live for God.

 

[Shermana]

If you love god you will obey God and live for God. So you abstain from sin not to achieve salvation, that is provided through the sacrifice of Christ and if you do lose your focus and sin Christ is faithful to forgive. The idea is not to live for the law but to live for God.

Except that its said that obedience is necessary for salvation. Trying to put the cart in front of the horse doesn't help when it specifically says the horse is before the cart. If you actually would bother addressing the verses I bring up of what Jesus says directly you'll see that he is saying exactly what I'm saying, and you have to twist, deny, contort, or change what he and James and Jude and Peter say to get it to say what you're saying.

You may have missed this part in edit too: Even Paul says that unrepentant fornicators won't enter the Kingdom. As with other threads, this issue often gets ignored for some odd reason:

Once again, why did Paul say that unrepentant fornicators won't enter the Kingdom? Obviously, those who continue to fornicate aren't truly saved by Paul's own words, whether I agree with Paul on everything or not. That is definitely a "legalist" works-based salvation if bad works prohibit you even the slightest.

So why would Paul say that unrepentant fornicators don't enter the Kingdom if your works aren't involved with your salvation? If you are only obeying the commandments because you love God, why are they barred from Heaven from choosing not to?

No matter how you spin it, it's unavoidable: You have to totally ignore vast swaths of the scripture and cherry pick-focus on a select few (after twisting their meanings) to deny the extreme "legalism" that the text itself describes.

 

[gseeker]

Wrong, Galatians say those who practice the works of the flesh, sin, will not obtain the kingdom of heaven. the word practice is very important because it mean actively doing something over and over again that is what non repentance means.

 

[gseeker]

Again you can't say you love God and yet refuse his commands. Its a question of motivation. To seek to follow the law to achieve salvation is a selfish intent to seek to obey God because you love God is not selfish or self serving. Christ spoke harshly against both selfishness and self serving. The real question is what does God thuink about your motives?

 

[Shermana]

Wrong, Galatians say those who practice the works of the flesh, sin, will not obtain the kingdom of heaven. the word practice is very important because it mean actively doing something over and over again that is what non repentance means.

Ummm, how am I wrong if you just said that Galatians as well says that those who practice "works of the flesh" won't enter the Kingdom? What am I wrong about? You just agreed with me that even Paul is legalistic in a way. Did you not notice where I said the word "unrepentant" by chance? Would you like to answer my questions and address my points?

And if faith without works is dead, what are these "Works" exactly and what role do they play? What is dead faith? He said that such faith "Does not save". Therefore, faith without "works" "Does not save". So what does that mean? What kind of works therefore do save according to James? What specifically? Even in Luther's time it was argued that these "works" were in fact "Works of the Law", only recently did this phrase even come to mean something other than adherence to Mosaic Law. Ultimately James says that faith without obedience to the Mosaic Law is dead according to the traditional interpretation.

Notice this question I asked: What are these works exactly, and why does faith without works NOT save, what are these works specifically that are demonstrative of who is being saved and why does faith without such works not save?

 

[Shermana]

Again you can't say you love God and yet refuse his commands. Its a question of motivation. To seek to follow the law to achieve salvation is a selfish intent to seek to obey God because you love God is not selfish or self serving. Christ spoke harshly against both selfishness and self serving. The real question is what does God thuink about your motives?

Calling my intent "selfish" because I believe there is work involved? Hardly. Your attempt to deny all the plain things Jesus said that (and even that Paul said) that your works are important in how your judgment is considered is selfish. If Paul says unrepentant fornicators won't enter the Kingdom, is it "Selfish" to believe that you should refrain from fornication for this reason? Most "Christians" I know fornicate. Unrepentantly. They follow the common idea that their works don't matter and that they're forgiven for a get out of hell free card. Is that not selfish? The motivation is to follow through what Jesus says and not twist it or deny and ignore what he says in other places. The motivation he gave was very "Selfish" by your logic: The very reason we are to endure until the end is for the sake of the reward. Why endure until the end if you don't have to? Is it selfish to do what Jesus says is necessary? Or do you disagree on what Jesus says is necessary?

If you are called to not sin, then you must know what sin is. I don't think you consider a sin all the things God considers a sin for one thing, I think you believe many of those things are no longer considered sins in the first place, am I wrong in this statement? Is it selfish to believe that it's wrong to give people the idea that refraining from sin isn't necessary? And if refraining from sin is necessary, you agree with what I'm saying are thus a "legalist", you just may not agree what "Sin" is.

If my motives are to enter the Kingdom because his message says very specifically quite plainly, in untwisted terms, that my works are in fact important as to whether I enter the Kingdom, I'd imagine my motives would be viewed with a passing grade. If your motive is to think you can get into heaven by bypassing all the parts that specifically say you must "strive" (more literally, "take pains") and endure and obey the commandments as a REQUIREMENT for entrance into the Kingdom, I'd call that very selfish, as well as irresponsible and lazy.

Jesus says that there will be a reward of 100x more than what the Disciples leave behind. Is that a selfish reward Jesus offers? If anything, your belief that you don't have to actually do anything is very selfish. The Israelites were punished for not obeying, was it selfish of them to obey then? The very idea that you believe in Jesus because you think you are going to Heaven and not going to hell can be called selfish.

Either way though you are ultimately avoiding my questions, which is expected and typical.

 

[9Westy9]

Right and wrong have to exist like Yin and Yang, what determines what is right and what is wrong.

Depends who you ask.

If you obey the Torah so many things are considered against the law that about the only way not to sin is to be in a coma. The things we are told not to do in the new testament is much smaller but I hear church leaders saying this and that is idolatry or tattoos are against the Bible because your body is a temple, drugs are bad m'kay but the caffeine in my soda is okay. Pure legalism is all I see anymore and if you try to correct them they say you are causing problems in the church. How can I be loved in Christianity when all I see in the modern church is a legalistic egotistical controlling hypocritical maniacal authoritative money machine?

:clap

 

[Rocky S]

Hey shermana sorry I haven't responded to some of you questions its been busy. so I will comment here because I think this will answer were I am coming from. Ive been thinking maybe our definitions of legalism are different. Now I do want to comment on some things here. And actually I did type a long reply to your fist reply to me, but I hit the wrong button and accidental deleted all of it I, was like arggh then I had to go do some repenting lol. First of all when I say legalism I am talking about the ceremonial law not the Decalogue. I am talking about sabbath keeping, ceremonial washing, dietary laws ,circumcision etc, as a means of justification especially initial justification. Now you are right in a sense about faith alone. But allow me to explain, according to Jesus initial justification is based on faith and belief in his death, burial, and resurrection.

I retract in saying Rocky didn't quote Paul, he technically did. Either way, Galatians 5:4 is one of the most critical verses that prove that Paul was teaching something totally contradictory than what the Jerusalem Church under James was teaching.And if faith without works is dead, what are these "Works" exactly and what role do they play? What is dead faith? He said that such faith "Does not save". Therefore, faith without "works" "Does not save".

Absolutely right, faith without works is dead

So what does that mean? What kind of works therefore do save according to James? What specifically?

Paul is talking about the ceremonial law, while James is talking about ones behavior. But it actually runs much deeper than that. Its like this; James is referring to those who say they have faith but believe that works are not necessary for christian living. James is not referring to initial justifying faith, but demonstration of christian faith before man. Christianity demands good works towards all man. One is not justified by works, but justified ones or those that are born again must do them to prove their christian consecration. like the example that James gives about Abraham. He gives the example when Abraham offered his son an an alter when God tested his faith. Now before this action Abraham was already justified by faith some 40 years before that incident. Matter of fact, Abraham was a righteous man before the levitical law and the Mosaic law. This is Paul's point as well a lot of times. The revelation of justification by faith was given to Abraham and is fulfilled in us when we put our faith in Christ.

Even in Luther's time it was argued that these "works" were in fact "Works of the Law", only recently did this phrase even come to mean something other than adherence to Mosaic Law.

Not in its entirety, the moral law yes, circumcision and ceremonialism no.

Ultimately James says that faith without obedience to the Mosaic Law is dead according to the traditional interpretation.

Well, that I guess is were we actually disagree. You being an Ebionite, and I hope that is the proper term, which I did not realize that. I am sorry because I failed to notice your title religion, I am kind of oblivious at times lol. So I know that is were your rejection of Paul stems from. And understandably so, because he did teach against certain ceremonial laws for as a means for justification. But James does not mention ceremonial law either. Not one Scripture in the book of James mentions sabbath keeping or the ceremonies or holy days or adhering to Judaism at all, and not to demean Judaism. I have studied James extensively there is not one mentioned of it. only conducted, love and benevolence.

Jesus did in fact say you must "Strive" (take pains, "aganizo") to "enter the narrow gate" yes he does and that "many will be called but few will be chosen". yes he did To say that working your way to heaven is ridiculous and goes against Christ's mission negates everything he taught about how to enter the Kingdom, and treats his sacrifice as an excuse to break any law you want, 1 John 3:4 quite explicitly explains that Sin is Lawlessness, future sins are not atoned for, only past sins. (Hebrews 10:26).

Right i agree, sin is defined as the breaking of the moral law or the decalogue. I'm a Pentecostal we don't teach that Grace is a license to sin. I know some denominations do, and I don't want to name them. I do not believe in once in grace always in Grace, or once saved always saved. But I believe that teaching, which I believe is heresy, stems from Calvinism or is a derivative of it. But that is another topic but an interesting one. I guess it is kind of relative to this topic because Calvin taught Gods grace cannot be resisted. That if you are predestined to be saved you will get saved no matter what. And then you can never lose your salvation, in essence John Calvin believe that there is no free moral agency with man.

Once again, why did Paul say that unrepentant fornicators won't enter the Kingdom?

Because they wont.

Obviously, those who continue to fornicate aren't truly saved by Paul's own words,

You are right, or those that had faith backslid which is another thing that some denominations do not believe in. Which is unscriptural to believe in such a thing. I believe one can loose his salvation.

whether I agree with Paul on everything or not. That is definitely a "legalist" works-based salvation if bad works prohibit you even the slightest.

Again obeying the conditions of the gospel is not legalism even God said obedience is better then sacrifice.. That is not legalism or not the biblical definition of legalism of the new testament..

 

[mycorrhiza]

what??

I guess I didn't fully read the original post

 

[gseeker]

Hey shermana sorry I haven't responded to some of you questions its been busy. so I will comment here because I think this will answer were I am coming from. Ive been thinking maybe our definitions of legalism are different. Now I do want to comment on some things here. And actually I did type a long reply to your fist reply to me, but I hit the wrong button and accidental deleted all of it I, was like arggh then I had to go do some repenting lol. First of all when I say legalism I am talking about the ceremonial law not the Decalogue. I am talking about sabbath keeping, ceremonial washing, dietary laws ,circumcision etc, as a means of justification especially initial justification. Now you are right in a sense about faith alone. But allow me to explain, according to Jesus initial justification is based on faith and belief in his death, burial, and resurrection.

Absolutely right, faith without works is dead Paul is talking about the ceremonial law, while James is talking about ones behavior. But it actually runs much deeper than that. Its like this; James is referring to those who say they have faith but believe that works are not necessary for christian living. James is not referring to initial justifying faith, but demonstration of christian faith before man. Christianity demands good works towards all man. One is not justified by works, but justified ones or those that are born again must do them to prove their christian consecration. like the example that James gives about Abraham. He gives the example when Abraham offered his son an an alter when God tested his faith. Now before this action Abraham was already justified by faith some 40 years before that incident. Matter of fact, Abraham was a righteous man before the levitical law and the Mosaic law. This is Paul's point as well a lot of times. The revelation of justification by faith was given to Abraham and is fulfilled in us when we put our faith in Christ. Not in its entirety, the moral law yes, circumcision and ceremonialism no. Well, that I guess is were we actually disagree. You being an Ebionite, and I hope that is the proper term, which I did not realize that. I am sorry because I failed to notice your title religion, I am kind of oblivious at times lol. So I know that is were your rejection of Paul stems from. And understandably so, because he did teach against certain ceremonial laws for as a means for justification. But James does not mention ceremonial law either. Not one Scripture in the book of James mentions sabbath keeping or the ceremonies or holy days or adhering to Judaism at all, and not to demean Judaism. I have studied James extensively there is not one mentioned of it. only conducted, love and benevolence.


Right i agree, sin is defined as the breaking of the moral law or the decalogue. I'm a Pentecostal we don't teach that Grace is a license to sin. I know some denominations do, and I don't want to name them. I do not believe in once in grace always in Grace, or once saved always saved. But I believe that teaching, which I believe is heresy, stems from Calvinism or is a derivative of it. But that is another topic but an interesting one. I guess it is kind of relative to this topic because Calvin taught Gods grace cannot be resisted. That if you are predestined to be saved you will get saved no matter what. And then you can never lose your salvation, in essence John Calvin believe that there is no free moral agency with man.

Because they wont. You are right, or those that had faith backslid which is another thing that some denominations do not believe in. Which is unscriptural to believe in such a thing. I believe one can loose his salvation. Again obeying the conditions of the gospel is not legalism even God said obedience is better then sacrifice.. That is not legalism or not the biblical definition of legalism of the new testament..

Thank you you said it a lot better than I could. The only people I know who think that they can get to heaven on works alone are mormons. I'm trying to figure out what role jesus plays in this mans theology if he thinks strict obedience to the law alone will bring salvation.

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you you said it a lot better than I could. The only people I know who think that they can get to heaven on works alone are mormons.

Wow, if this is really what you believe, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Mormons believe that without Jesus Christ there is not one single solitary person who has ever lived who was righteous enough (i.e. did enough good works) to get into Heaven. Who told you this anyway?

 

[gseeker]

Wow, if this is really what you believe, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Mormons believe that without Jesus Christ there is not one single solitary person who has ever lived who was righteous enough (i.e. did enough good works) to get into Heaven. Who told you this anyway?

You misunderstood, I wasn't saying that Oldsmobile didn't believe in the importance of Jesus, just that Mormons think they have to work their way to finish their salvation that Christs death wasn't enough to save them from sin but was just a beganing point. This guy seems to be taking it even further by saying the law alone brings salvation so it is all about works.

 

[sojourner]

Is there no penalty for adultery either?

There are always penalties/prices to be paid for selfishness. but those prices are eternally damaging to one's spiritual well-being. All Jesus asks is that our hearts are in the right place.

Which, BTW, I already know you're going to give three pages of "scholastic" drivel denying.

 

[Shermana]

I'm trying to figure out what role jesus plays in this mans theology if he thinks strict obedience to the law alone will bring salvation.

How do you interpret Hebrews 10:26 and 1 John 3:4?