Posts tagged legalism

About the new blog name…

2 years ago

by admin in Announcements/Status, Grace-Based Theology, vs. Legalism

Those who don’t know what the blog title means probably are wondering what it means…and those who do are probably wondering why I picked such a crude title. The Greek word “skubala”, or “skubalon”, is a harsh expletive meaning “excrement”. In English, it could be taken to mean “crap” but the more accurate translation starts with the letter S.

So what’s the point? Why name a blog after it, or for that matter even use the word?

First off, Paul did. In Philippians 3:8 Paul speaks of now counting all the things he formerly boasted of (his Jewish heritage, his exemplary law-keeping, his good works, his zeal, etc.) as skubala – compared to the worth of knowing Christ.

Our modern English translations, even the esteemed ESV, do the passage a great disservice by rendering the word as “rubbish”. In our society today, rubbish can be a thing of value to some people. From dumpster divers to tree-huggers to antique collectors, some seem to be able to take others’ rubbish and consider it something worthwhile. We’re certainly a strange culture. Couple that with a dislike for strong, earthly language and it becomes difficult to even express the original meaning in contemporary American society without either sending the wrong message (indicating that there’s some redeemable value) or offending gentle hearers (such as by directly translating it… as Luther did by choosing the word “kot” in his translation).

But the point is that the works of righteousness — of which Paul had a greater resumé to boast about than probably anyone else alive — are akin to an unredeemable pile of bull manure compared to the “surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus” (Phil 3:7), gaining Christ (Phil 3:8), and having not “a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ.” (Phil. 3:9)

So now what’s that have to do with the blog? One of my major focuses has been attempts to show how foolish it is to place confidence in human works of righteousness as means of merit. Nonetheless my efforts to illustrate this are still, in and of themselves, human works. The only good that can come out of anything I write is if, somehow, God uses any truth that may be present to draw people to himself and away from attempts at meritorious law-keeping which can in the end only lead to death. Our own efforts at earning favor or trying to be good under our own power need to fade away and be considered as skubala (or dung – Geneva & KJV).

Now, I’d thought about some provocative title such as “Holy Skubala!” and while that title still seems fitting in a way (think along “saint and sinner” lines), due to its close similarity to an offensive phrase I couldn’t really use it as a title without parading liberty in a way that wouldn’t be right. Though you’ve gotta admit it would be a creative title.

So there it is. Renamed blog. Even if what I say is nothing more than a pile of you-know-what in and of itself, if it can be used to point someone to the “surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus” (Phil 3:7), gaining Christ (Phil 3:8), and having not “a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ” (Phil. 3:9) — then it has done its job.

grace legalism

3 years ago

by admin in Miscellaneous

From an e-newsletter I get at church…

Christians who are no longer sure that God loves and accepts them in Jesus, apart from their present spiritual achievements, are subconsciously radically insecure persons—much less secure than non-Christians, because they have too much light to rest easily under the constant bulletins they receive from their Christian environment about the holiness of God and the righteousness they are supposed to have. Their insecurity shows itself in pride, a fierce defensive assertion of their own righteousness and defensive criticism of others
They cling desperately to legal, pharisaical righteousness, but envy, jealousy and other branches on the tree of sin grow out of their fundamental insecurity
it is often necessary to convince sinners (even sinful Christians) of the grace and love of God toward them, before we can get them to look at their problems. Then the vision of grace and the sense of God’s forgiving acceptance may actually cure most of the problems. This may account for Paul’s frequent fusing of justification and sanctification.

–Richard Lovelace. Dynamics of Spiritual Life

freedom grace legalism

Deference or Tough-Love?

3 years ago

by admin in Grace-Based Theology, The Church, vs. Legalism

In a recent discussion thread on Crossings (a discussion forum I periodically contribute to) the topic of not causing people to stumble, showing deference, and acting in love was discussed. This is based on my response in that thread.

There can be varying definitions of “stumbling”. In the event that someone claims that those with “lower standards” cause them to stumble simply because they feel defiled by being in the presence of “lower standards”, I would be inclined to question whether this truly counts as “stumbling”. While it could be that some are truly that weak in faith, it may also be an out-of-comfort-zone issue, and in extreme cases, a desire to control.

But there are some things that really could cause someone to stumble if it is an area where they are weak — such as instances of drinking in front of a recovering alcoholic. Or, case in point, what Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 10: eating food that had been sacrificed to idols. A strong believer would know the idol was nothing, but to someone weak in faith (who might have also believed the idol had powers) it could cause them fear and doubt, or to think that they were actually sharing something with both God and demons.

But in cases where this is taken to the extreme where one shows deference to the point of not doing anything that could offend someone (especially if not in their presence), then one is living enslaved by another’s laws, which generally means quenching the Holy Spirit to instead live according to a rule book. If one is offended simply by the knowledge of activities or lifestyle choices another participates in, when not together, this principle is also being taken to the extreme. Furthermore, one should not live in fear of offending someone just because they might be seen (i.e. by not dressing a certain way, avoiding certain establishments, etc.). While deference is an act of love, love also leaves no place for fear. And in some cases showing love to someone may be not deferring to their legalistic expectations but rather letting them see the truth: that these rules are not required for one to be accepted by God, and that it is like the sin of the Pharisees. Just as willful offense is wrong, so are such cases of being offended. I don’t think we do anyone any favors by bowing to their laws just to keep them from becoming offended.

So while there are definitely legitimate cases for deference out of love for a weaker Christian, sometimes love for another can also take the form of tough love by now bowing to the “laws” when unnecessary requirements are being placed on another. Consider the Pharisees in the Gospels or the Judaizers in the epistles — both of which were called out as wrong, not catered to.

legalism

Informational Preaching?

3 years ago

by admin in Miscellaneous

“The ‘informational’ view of preaching conceives of preaching as changing people’s lives after the sermon. They listen to the sermon, take notes, and then apply the Biblical principles during the week. But this assumes that our main problem is a lack of compliance to Biblical principles, when … all our problems are actually due to a lack of joy and belief in the gospel. Our real problem is that Jesus’ salvation is not as real to our hearts as the significance and security our idols promise us. If that’s our real problem, then the purpose of preaching is to make Christ so real to the heart that in the sermon people have an experience of his grace, and the false saviors that drive us lose their power and grip on us on the spot. That’s the ‘experiential’ view of preaching (Jonathan Edwards).”

–Tim Keller

grace legalism quotes

When Family Values Become Idolatry

3 years ago

by admin in vs. Legalism

The institution of the family is one of the most basic building blocks of a society. But it is not the most basic level, as a family is a unit comprised of individuals. Yet today there are many who say that the family, not the individual, is the base unit of society. What is the difference?

The main difference is that if we fail to view the family as a sum of unique parts, but instead view it as a single homogenous entity, we fail to recognize the distinct individuals in each family. For example, if the family is overemphasized, the desire to preserve family unity and appearance ends up trumping each individual’s gifts and personal needs.

Therefore, it is important that while there is no need to denigrate the family, there is also inherent danger in exalting it to the point where it becomes the end in itself, a public face that all members of the family must sacrifice to in order to maintain the family image.

Moving from hypothetical generalities to specific instances: there is a fringe organization known as the Vision Forum, a parachurch group located in Texas, which emphasizes the family unit to the point where individualism is almost looked down upon. The organization’s stated purpose is that they are “dedicated to the restoration of Christian family culture.”[i] What does that “Christian family culture” entail?

First, it appears that it entails a patriarchal figure determining a goal for his descendants – and then doing what is necessary to ensure his children and his children’s children meet his goal. As stated in an informational page on the Vision Forum website: “For our children to be mighty in the land, we must embrace a long-term vision of victory, and this will only be achieved if we take steps now to plan and implement multi-generational goals for our families.”[ii] Personally, I find it highly pompous that an individual would try to prescribe goals for his children and grandchildren – and further descendants for the next 200 years![iii] There are some things which are acceptable – even commendable – such as desiring to see one’s children and grandchildren and many generations beyond that serving the Lord. But this goal should not be for one’s own legacy, reputation, or benefit. Instead, the goals advocated include number of children one’s own children and grandchildren will have, skills they are to attain, books they are to write, and even businesses they are to establish.[iv]

Second, as previously alluded to, this system (commonly entitled “patriarchy”)[v] denies the individuality of each member of the family. If each family member is simply a pawn in the hand of the almighty patriarch, whether he be the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, or long-since-passed-on great-great-grandfather, then he has no individual rights, no room to fulfill his own dreams, and ultimately, no freedom to be who God has called him to be. Under the ideals presented by this patriarchal system, a man is not even granted the freedom to set his own goals until he marries. But even the individual he marries is not ultimately a choice he makes, but rather something that his parents have a significant role in setting up.[vi] (Disclaimer: This is not cited directly from a Vision Forum publication, but rather from the writings of someone influenced by Vision Forum. My personal experience from dialogue with those involved with and influenced by VF materials confirms that this is a prevalent VF teaching and thus falls within the scope of this examination.)

The patriarchal system, however, leaves even less freedom for women than it does for men. Within the system presented as an ideal – no, not just an ideal, but a mandate – a married woman has no other place than at home, cleaning, cooking, sewing, and producing babies. Single women are said to “have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling,”[vii] but even so are made to feel like anything but being a homemaker is not only less than ideal, but actually sinful.

For unmarried men and women, Vision Forum explicitly states that they remain under their father’s jurisdiction until the point of being released.[viii] This concept of release is extrabiblical but has been well-established as a law within families and churches that subscribe to the patriarchal doctrines.

This causes unnecessary heartache for parents and their adult offspring alike. The framework is set such that adult children are likely to feel guilty for even desiring something for themselves apart from the “vision” set by their parents. Thus, it is not uncommon for someone past the age of 20, perhaps even past the age of 30, to live under their parents’ roof, be entirely dependent on their parents, and have no goals apart from what their parents set. Should they have an individual desire, in all likelihood it will be seen as rebellion and be treated as wrong. As stated above, even marriage is something which tends to be overseen by the parents. This ultimately fulfills the previously stated goal of the subsequent generations following the vision set by the patriarch, or in simpler terms, one’s ability to have grandchildren made pretty close to his own image. This level of control is unhealthy, both for the “patriarch” (due to him becoming a “priest figure” or even a “god figure”) as well as the offspring, who have the equivalent of a human guru or priest guiding their way instead of having these decisions be the product of their relationship with Christ. And ultimately, it becomes a form of idolatry, because something other than Jesus Christ becomes the primary focus. The focus may be doing whatever it takes to get a “Christian America”, looking good in society, being well-spoken of, ideals of “militant fecundity”[ix], etc. (for the patriarch), or looking to a human rather than to God for direction (for the offspring). Either way, something or someone has entered a role that should belong to God alone, and this is idolatry.

If the reader is one who sees himself as a “patriarch,” I urge you to re-evaluate your goals. I would venture to say that anything more than desiring that your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on be strong followers of Christ is more than necessary. Many things may be your vision, feeding your ego – and may not be God’s will for those individuals, who are individuals before God just as you are, with equal rights and equal access to God. The only thing that you can, and should, desire is that they be strong Christians, trusting in Christ alone (not you, not anyone else, but Christ alone). And if the reader is an offspring or someone who is under the authority of a “patriarch” – consider whether you are in a position where your relationship with Christ can be your own or if another is putting himself in a position to be as your “high priest,” a mediator between God and you. “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.”[x] If this is the case, you must prayerfully evaluate whether you can persuade the individual to let you be free in Christ, or whether leaving is the healthier option. And finally, as Paul exhorted Timothy, “Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.”[xi]

[i] “Description” meta tag, http://www.visionforum.com/, 4/25/08

[ii] Retrieved from http://www.visionforum.com/booksandmedia/productdetail.aspx?productid=43872 on 4/25/08.

[iii] http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2008/03/3482.aspx

[iv] http://www.mikesoutherland.com/blog/2006/12/thatll-never-work-lets-just-see-about.html

[v] http://www.visionforumministries.org/home/about/biblical_patriarchy.aspx

[vi] http://www.mikesoutherland.com/blog/2006/12/thatll-never-work-lets-just-see-about.html, paragraph 11

[vii] http://www.visionforumministries.org/home/about/biblical_patriarchy.aspx, items #13-15

[viii] http://www.visionforumministries.org/home/about/biblical_patriarchy.aspx, item #22

[ix] http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2007/05/2614.aspx

[x] I Timothy 2:5,6. The Holy Bible, English Standard Version

[xi] I Timothy 4:12. The Holy Bible, English Standard Version

freedom fundamentalism grace legalism

On the Higher Life and Keswick Movements

3 years ago

by admin in Exposition and Sermons, Topical Articles, vs. Legalism

A topic that I have followed for some time but have previously not focused a lot of specific attention on is the “higher life” movement popular in certain branches of evangelical Christianity. Closely related to the evangelical holiness movement, proponents of “higher life” teach that it is possible to achieve a state of complete sanctification (completely free of sin) during this life.

Adherents to this belief state that in addition to the “conversion experience” there will be a second point in life where an individual reaches a point of complete surrender such that sinful motives no longer are present. Adherents of this view refer to this as “victory” and speak of the experience in terms such as “breaking through to the victorious life.”

As this view gained ground in the latter part of the 19th century, conferences and revival meetings were held so as to share the recent “discovery” and further the movement. Proponents claimed that through the conferences people could break through to “life more abundant.” Although it started in England, “higher life” teaching quickly caught on in the United States, where the rugged “pioneer spirit” and independent mindset had already been proven to welcome human-centric theological positions.

Though on the surface the goal of being sinless seems like a noble goal, there are some reasons why “higher life” thinking seems to be both dangerous and untenable. First, while Scripture is clear about (a) the one-time justification through Christ’s work, (b) the ongoing work of sanctification through the Holy Spirit, and (c) the future state of glorification, Scripture does not seem to teach that God-like perfection will happen in this life. Second, if this second experience is needed, then it is implied that regeneration, faith, and justification are insufficient. It is as if regeneration does not truly occur until a person has an experience of “breaking through.” This stands in sharp contrast to the traditional Christian belief that regeneration precedes faith. Under the “higher life” school of thought, regeneration is either ineffective, insufficient, or else partial prior to the “total surrender” experience.

A further problem with “higher life” theology is that it establishes two classes of Christians – those who are simply “saved” and those who are “in surrender.” Suggesting this distinction also implies that the work of Christ was not enough to make the Christian completely blameless in the sight of God, but rather that there are some who “do it better” and thus are “better” Christians. It becomes a society of the “haves” and the “have-nots” – those who are “just getting by” and those who are really “assets for Christ.” The “haves” will then tend to grow prideful due to their so-called “higher life,” thanking God that they are not like those “tax collectors” – those who haven’t yet had a “higher life” experience. The “have-nots” are left feeling inadequate, pressured into believing that what Christ has done for them is not enough and that in order to be as good as their surrendered brethren, there is something more that they must do in order to measure up.

By this point it should seem pretty clear that this system is little more than semi-Pelagianism in yet another form. And this, too, should not be a great surprise, considering that is the de-facto American religion. With this in mind, then, those who claim to oppose all forms of Pelagian thought must be wary about the various means in which this way of thinking creeps into our lives. Of course we can expect to see it in the many semi-Pelagian denominations, including but not limited to the Methodist churches, Pentecostal churches, Evangelical Holiness churches, Mennonite churches, Nazarene churches, Christian and Missionary Alliance churches, Assemblies of God, and General Baptist churches – to name a few.

In fact, the Christian and Missionary Alliance and later the Assembly of God denominations can trace their roots back to the higher life movement itself! A.B. Simpson, founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, believed that he himself had this “breakthrough moment” (he referred to it as a “mountain top experience”) through which he was sanctified. He subsequently left the Reformed/Calvinistic viewpoint he had previously held to (and taught) and picked up a theology firmly rooted in individual choice. Emphasizing this individual choice, he made the decision to be baptized a second time – this time not based on the sign of God’s work but rather as a confirmation of his decision. Simpson is also the founder of the “four-fold Gospel” – a key point of both C&MA and Assemblies doctrine. A critique of the “four-fold Gospel” is beyond the scope and focus of this entry, but one such critique can be found at link #7 in the Resources section at the bottom of this entry. While looking at the close connection between the C&MA and the “higher life” movement, it should be noted that the C&MA itself has on its website references to the “higher life” movement – including, but not limited to, the beginning of the “Keswick Convention for Higher Spiritual Life.” The official timeline of the C&MA (see resource #8 below) states that in 1858 Simpson “received divine assurance of his salvation” but also that in 1874 Simpson was “filled with the Holy Spirit.” In other words, on this official electronic publication of the denomination the allegation is made that sixteen years elapsed between when Simpson received divine assurance of his salvation and his “filling with the Holy Spirit.” This is typical of the “higher life” movement (also commonly known as the “Keswick movement”), and illustrates the deep connection between the C&MA (as well as Assemblies) and the Keswick movement.

Returning once again to the main theme of this entry, the Keswick movement/”higher life” movement, one must again ask – why does all this matter? With this knowledge, why should I care? Why is it significant? It is significant in that adherence to “higher life” thinking changes one’s entire view of God and the Christian life. Though the goal of pressing toward the mark of perfection sounds noble, it is not something that we can accomplish in ourselves (nor is it the ultimate goal). If there is a second experience that a Christian needs to reach and undergo, it means that there is something lacking – that one who is a Christian still needs something more than Christ’s finished work. Also, if this second experience is a reality, then it gives way to a Christian caste system. Based on levels of surrender as well as outward standards, it allows a scorecard by which some Christians can perceive themselves as better than the lesser so-called “carnal” Christians – those who have not had an experience of total surrender. The focus is not on Christ’s work – or Christ himself – but instead the way life is lived and the works we do. While even in the Keswick movement most or all will say that salvation is by grace alone, not by works, most will also imply that there are works and standards that help to be “better.”

At this point I hope I have demonstrated the dangers of the Keswick movement in a way that carefully delineates between “higher life” theology and a healthy relationship with Christ. For it is true that one who is a follower of Christ and one seeking to bring glory to Christ ought to be surrendered to the Holy Spirit and living a life that is becoming of one who claims the name of Christ. But the focus must remain on Christ and not means of achieving a better feeling, better prestige, perceived higher standing with God, etc. for ourselves. We must be careful to not allow distinctions between “higher” and “common” forms of Christianity, such as to think that those who live a certain way or have undergone a certain experience are better than those who have not. We need to humbly remember that regeneration precedes faith – as it is not our faith that makes it possible to receive Christ, but rather that it is a work of Christ that makes it possible to have faith in Christ. If faith precedes regeneration, then we had better make sure we dot our “I’s” and cross our “T’s” because it depends on us. But if regeneration precedes faith – and this is the historic belief of the church – then we are free from bondage to works for standing before God because it all depends on Christ.

Finally, I urge the reader to consider John’s words to the early church in the book of 1 John, issuing a strong warning against the Gnostic heresies which were pervasive at the time. For ultimately, this “higher life” theology is but another form of Gnosticism in that it implies a “secret” or “higher” truth that is only available to an elite few, who then have something special that the others do not have. As the Teacher of Ecclesiastes wrote, “there is nothing new under the sun.” Gnostic heresies are alive and well today, and just as in John’s day we must be careful to not allow this deception to sway us away from the truth.

Scriptures:
1 John 1:7-8 ~ “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

1 John 2:1-2 ~ “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

1 John 2:20, 26-27 ~ “But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. . . I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything—and is true and is no lie, just as it has taught you—abide in him.”

1 John 2:28-3:3 ~ “And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming. If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him. See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.”

1 John 4:5-6 ~ “They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”

1 John 4:17-19 ~ “By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us.”

1 John 5:4-8 ~ “For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.”

Resources:

1. http://www.ondoctrine.com/10armini.htm

2. http://www.withchrist.org/MJS/armcalpaul.htm

3. http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2007/01/response-to-prosperity-gospel-in.html

4. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=124

5. http://www.pcahistory.org/findingaids/rpces/docsynod/289.html

6. http://www.frontlinemin.org/higherlife.asp

7. http://www.apts.edu/caps/Occasional%20lecture/series01/Lecture%20Four.pdf

8. http://www.cmalliance.org/whoweare/archives/timeline.jsp (click on 1850s and 1870s)

legalism