The two faces of legalism. Opposite sides of the same coin.

[SemperFiDawg]

Given one assumes the truth of God, Christ, and the basic doctrines of Christianity. The penultimate question of life then becomes "How do I conduct myself accordingly?". and it's there where one generally meets the first hurdle. It's a hurdle that dates back to the Christ's time when those who accepted his teachings were seeking the answer to the very same question.

Today the hurdle posed by the question "Given Christ, how do I live my life now?" is almost always answered by the one of two seemingly, contradictory views of what I call the "can't do" crowd and the "can do" crowd.

The "can't do's" if you will, are frequently associated with the Pharisees of Christ's time. In fact, today the pejorative term, "Pharisee" is often used as an ad hominem charge against those deemed to have wandered into the thicket of legalism. "Can't Do's" tend place a heavy emphasis in obedience to the Law as a standard in which to live their life given Christ. Some go so far as to trust it as their path to salvation.

On the other side of the coin is the currently popular "Can Do" crowd. They answer the question "Given Christ, how do I live my life? with the answer "all things are permissible", and are just as quick as the "Can't Do's" to point to verses in scripture to support their position. They correctly place all emphasis of salvation on Christ but many relieve man of any obligation afterward. Despite the case that in most aspects they are just as rigid and the Can't Do's in their position, they do not see themselves as legalistic. In fact they hold that their position is the exact opposite of legalism, and they will ironically frequently quote verse after verse to justify just why their position is directly contrary to the lowly Pharisaical Can't Do's who are so misguided. They are wrong about this.

Here is why they are wrong. Let's start with the definition of legalism. There's a lot of them out there, but I think representatives of both sides of the coin would agree on this: Legalism focuses on God's laws more than relationship with God. Now let's apply it to the one group we all agree it fits, and look at exactly how it fits. Did the Pharisees focus on God's laws more than a relationship with God. Well DUH! Of course they did. Christ walked among them and they crucified him for suggesting He and God were One. So yeah. It's safe to say they didn't grasp the whole, quote, relationship, un-quote concept. When the answer was "relationship" , they turned away and pointed to scripture. Sound familiar? Where do the both the Can't Do's annnnnnd the Can Do's point people given the question "Given Christ, now what?? Hint: It ain't DEVELOPE A RELATIONSHIP WITH CHRIST " Just like the Pharisees both groups point those seeking guidance toward a doctrinal position and not a relationship.

 

[hummerpoo]

Given one assumes the truth of God, Christ, and the basic doctrines of Christianity. The penultimate question of life then becomes "How do I conduct myself accordingly?". and it's there where one generally meets the first hurdle. It's a hurdle that dates back to the Christ's time when those who accepted his teachings were seeking the answer to the very same question.

Today the hurdle posed by the question "Given Christ, how do I live my life now?" is almost always answered by the one of two seemingly, contradictory views of what I call the "can't do" crowd and the "can do" crowd.

The "can't do's" if you will, are frequently associated with the Pharisees of Christ's time. In fact, today the pejorative term, "Pharisee" is often used as an ad hominem charge against those deemed to have wandered into the thicket of legalism. "Can't Do's" tend place a heavy emphasis in obedience to the Law as a standard in which to live their life given Christ. Some go so far as to trust it as their path to salvation.

On the other side of the coin is the currently popular "Can Do" crowd. They answer the question "Given Christ, how do I live my life? with the answer "all things are permissible", and are just as quick as the "Can't Do's" to point to verses in scripture to support their position. They correctly place all emphasis of salvation on Christ but many relieve man of any obligation afterward. Despite the case that in most aspects they are just as rigid and the Can't Do's in their position, they do not see themselves as legalistic. In fact they hold that their position is the exact opposite of legalism, and they will ironically frequently quote verse after verse to justify just why their position is directly contrary to the lowly Pharisaical Can't Do's who are so misguided. They are wrong about this.

Here is why they are wrong. Let's start with the definition of legalism. There's a lot of them out there, but I think representatives of both sides of the coin would agree on this: Legalism focuses on God's laws more than relationship with God. Now let's apply it to the one group we all agree it fits, and look at exactly how it fits. Did the Pharisees focus on God's laws more than a relationship with God. Well DUH! Of course they did. Christ walked among them and they crucified him for suggesting He and God were One. So yeah. It's safe to say they didn't grasp the whole, quote, relationship, un-quote concept. When the answer was "relationship" , they turned away and pointed to scripture. Sound familiar? Where do the both the Can't Do's annnnnnd the Can Do's point people given the question "Given Christ, now what?? Hint: It ain't DEVELOPE A RELATIONSHIP WITH CHRIST " Just like the Pharisees both groups point those seeking guidance toward a doctrinal position and not a relationship.

For those moved to give real consideration to the perennial question which you have masterfully laid before us I offer two sources for consideration:

The first of which I got from Gordon on this forum several years ago, and I can offer no insight into the source or the authority from which it was generated; however, I believe that the wisdom shown is authoritative in itself.

"Pharasaic zeal and Antinomian security are the two engines of Satan, with which he grinds the church in all ages, as betwixt the upper and nether millstone. The space between them is much narrower and harder to find than most men imagine. It is a path which the vulture's eye hath not seen, and none can show it us but the Holy Ghost."
Joseph Hart, Minister

The second is one that, in my observation and experience, has been, and is, seldom considered without one's presuppositions resulting in an incomplete understanding.

Romans 14

14 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written,

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall give praise to God.”
12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

For those moved to give real consideration to the perennial question which you have masterfully laid before us I offer two sources for consideration:

The first of which I got from Gordon on this forum several years ago, and I can offer no insight into the source or the authority from which it was generated; however, I believe that the wisdom shown is authoritative in itself.



The second is one that, in my observation and experience, has been, and is, seldom considered without one's presuppositions resulting in an incomplete understanding.

Romans 14

Outstanding and beautifully edifying. There is LIFE in that. And a nod to Gordon also for that reference, but I have to ask myself with regards to his quote, if the "The space between them is much narrower and harder to find than most men imagine" reaallly the path, because it doesn't quiet fit my experience. My experience that I spent my whole life trying to find that "path which the vulture's eye hath not seen", " betwixt the upper and nether millstone",
and I was almost ground to destruction. The path I discovered was not a path at all, but a relationship with that of a Living River that completely engulfed and washed away not only both "millstones", but the need for a mill.

It's a relationship of service initially founded upon my gratitude, built upon by trust over time, and now fueled by my utter selfishness to want what's best for me and whatever that "best" is, comes from God. It's the only place in my life where my utter selfishness is beneficial. In any other aspect, and I've tried them all, it results in self-destruction.

P.S. I like the NIV translation, but I'm a simpleton.

16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking,(X) but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

 

[Israel]

There's a point in this a man will find "too personal".

So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.

Just as this is too personal to the man in exposure by the plainness of which it is demonstrated:

Love one another as I have loved you.

 

[hummerpoo]

Outstanding and beautifully edifying. There is LIFE in that. And a nod to Gordon also for that reference, but I have to ask myself with regards to his quote, if the "The space between them is much narrower and harder to find than most men imagine" reaallly the path, because it doesn't quiet fit my experience. My experience that I spent my whole life trying to find that "path which the vulture's eye hath not seen", " betwixt the upper and nether millstone",
and I was almost ground to destruction. The path I discovered was not a path at all, but a relationship with that of a Living River that completely engulfed and washed away not only both "millstones", but the need for a mill.

It's a relationship of service initially founded upon my gratitude, built upon by trust over time, and now fueled by my utter selfishness to want what's best for me and whatever that "best" is, comes from God. It's the only place in my life where my utter selfishness is beneficial. In any other aspect, and I've tried them all, it results in self-destruction.

P.S. I like the NIV translation, but I'm a simpleton.

I would suggest that what you have found IS a path, and it is a path that "none can show it us but the Holy Ghost."

 

[hummerpoo]

There's a point in this a man will find "too personal".

So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.

Just as this is too personal to the man in exposure by the plainness of which it is demonstrated:

Love one another as I have loved you.

Yes, Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;

 

[Israel]

Yes, Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;

Yes and amen, a man can be hung upon that point.

 

[gordon 2]

“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3

Children have an ease to abstraction, that is they have an non-vexed ease to

extraction

removal

separation

detachment

in the cognitive department.


Adults grow up in responsibility and generally tend to loose some of theses attributes. Not all, but most loose or don't use these cognitive features. Adults usually don't care to wear their emotions on their sleeves. They learn to play poker faces with them.

And what is worse is that some adults never got to be children in the first place. They got to be adults too soon. Be it from a pregnancy too early or from oppressive family relationships or from simply having to be a bread winner too soon. What must be understood is that the imput from relationships for such individuals must be limited simply from under use of many ways of cognitive- emotional assessments. So what is going to be processed by an individual in a Holy Ghost relationship? What is the Helper going to do with such a saint who never had a childhood or has lost its creative capacity?

Before we walk the narrow way The Holy Spirit will see to it that we re-learn to walk not unlike a child learns to walk and in doing so we will again be at ease with abstractions in relationships as opposed to the rigid, stiff, formal ways of relationship as adults.

Many falls for some, or one fall for some... can be extremely restorative. I have seen saints ( adults) literally fall and crawl in order that they might extract, remove, separate and detach from never recalling what it was like to be like little children-- often for no fault of their own.

As adults when we place ourselves at the foot of the cross we seldom see ourselves as the roman soldiers and find the need to fall on our knees but rather we might identify with the saints gathered there, we might try to convince ourselves that we die with Jesus there-- but really we are captives. We are the soldiers needing to fall we who crucify Christ daily. And so in the Holy Ghost relationship we are made to be born again. And then the righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit is no longer limited by captivity-- by limited adult thinking and assessments but also added the wholesome capacity to abstractions from non-vexed hearts of innocence.

With such hearts restored, walking is restored to walk the famed narrow way--- and also to hear, see, walk, smell along the way. Such is the life of the born again.

 

[gordon 2]

Just in case the above is off topic, this might compensate:

There is much outside the narrow path that is thought to be in the box regards the path but it is not.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Just in case the above is off topic, this might compensate:

There is much outside the narrow path that is thought to be in the box regards the path but it is not.

I'm sorry. I tried to listen to that, but it was like a lawn mower on a gravel bed. I just couldn't.

 

[Israel]

"Being commanded to do something does not indicate the ability to do it."
gemcgrew

We call a man a hypocrite who seeks to instruct or command something we find he himself is either not doing, or resolved (in, and to our sight) as something he cannot, or will not, do.

All of our agreement to even the benefit of what may be instructed/commanded in what we may consider the finest of recommendation, if we find the point at which this is "not being done" by the instructor we recognize his lack of authority to issue.

And though none of us may have any desire (as far as we know our own desire) to be shown as hypocrites, unless we are convinced of a thing that is in excess of what we may even consider all the impetus/motive that can be found in desire, that is the mercy and grace found in Jesus Christ...yes!...even to hypocrites!...we will shortly find our own desire to be, or not be a thing, severely deficient. "I want to be Godly" works no better than "I do not want to be a hypocrite".

Desire, like pain, (and no different, really) place a demand of resolution upon a man. "To have or possess" is as discomfiting in experience as the will to be rid, or free, of something. Now, I realize some could say by their own inference that what is being said underneath all is there is no difference between being Godly or hypocritical in desire, and therefore this easily equates no less to wanting to be a hypocrite and not wanting to be Godly. No, what I am saying is ultimately our desire means nothing. At least as far as this (if it can be received) might be measured:

God's desire in salvation so outstrips man's desire to be saved as to make the former all and only the worth considering.

"Fear not little flock..." Jesus told those whose heart's swelled at His words, knowing the fear they must meet if trusting only in their own desire. A man is so easily bent to his own desires (and even if in right fear of them) until he is forced to confront "The Authority".

That fear met here "I will show you whom you should fear..." (Has it been shown yet Jesus Christ has that authority to both say and lead to that Whom to show?) if so, then you know He is the Son and His word is true...and the only word to still the heart in that Presence. Where the commands come before any presumption of man is to bend to his own reason.

It's almost funny (for want of a better word, but there's much in that almost) how a man appears to himself there. Entirely (to himself) unfit, yet unable to deny being there. This is where things get decided in light as to testimony...the man's testimony of himself (of which he has no place to lie in such terror)...or the Lord's testimony as Savior.

He may learn who is rightly called liar there. And begin to enjoy being at home.

 

[gordon 2]

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

------------------
Though the road is narrow I suspect there are different ways of hearing, so that all saints do follow. I suspect that His voice calling is what makes saints steady as they ascend and descend to and from their high mountain pastures.

What is different and addition to or from this way of following which is custom to saints, saints are more capable of following from God's righteousness. From its cues one is not only on the mountain paths, but in the way.

 

[gemcgrew]

A man may be brought to a place... whereas to see... the Legalist is the Antinomian.