I am going to start a series where I attempt, in my own flawed way, to answer common arguments that have been posed to me by legalists.
I am only addressing one argument at a time, and I will only answer that one particular argument. Anyone who expects me to answer all possible tangents will be disappointed. I ask for patience on the part of the reader. Thank you!
Argument #1
"The law is harder to keep; the Spirit helps you to keep it, grace makes up for your failures."
OK. If I were to ask "where does it say that?" one would no doubt reply "it's a summary of many things." But I would implore one to consider a few things that appear to have been left out of that.
The law cannot save, it only condemns (ROM. 4: 15; GAL. 3: 10), and without mercy (HEB. 10: 28). That is, after all, why Jesus had to come. So I am to believe, after all mankind was already made guilty, that Jesus then made it far easier to be made guilty? We are already guilty!
No man could keep it perfectly before, so how do you make it harder? You can't make "slip up once and you're dead" harder. If you have no hope then you have no hope. There can't be extra EXTRA no hope. A purpose of the law was to bring men under condemnation (ROM. 5: 20). The law did that perfectly. So why make it harder AFTER salvation has come in? Another purpose of the law was to bring us to the time of Jesus (GAL. 3: 24). Well, that has come. Why couldn't grace just make up for the law as it was? Think about that.
That's as if God said, "I'm going to make it super easy to be condemned, but don't worry about that, you can't be condemned because you're under grace." So, I have to keep the law, but it's OK because I don't actually have to keep the law that I have to keep. That's just a fancy way of saying I don't have to keep the law. Plus it's just confusion.
How much do I have to try to keep in order for it to add grace to me? 1%? 46%? 73%? If the answer is 100%, then I ask, why don't Armstrongists do that? I have shown multiple times how the COGs don't even recognize the whole law, the reasoning given to me was "Herbert Armstrong changed the law out of necessity." So what is the difference, then, between those who fail to keep a certain selection of the laws, and, say, a Protestant who just tries his best to believe in Jesus and be a good person? The hopeless attempt? Really? This is a great place to ask "where does it say that?"
So, the Spirit helps you keep your selection of the law? People in the Old Testament are said to have had the Spirit (Joseph, David, etc). The Spirit didn't cause them to keep the law perfectly at that time. If the Spirit helps you to keep the newer, harder law, then why can't any man do it even today? Is God not able to complete a task?
(ROM. 2: 23) You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?
For one who demands law, breaking the law dishonors God. The little bit that you keep does not honor Him! This is the curse of law.
(ROM. 2: 25-27) 25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?
(GAL. 3: 10) ...“Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”
You know and will admit that you often break the law. But you expect Christ to make up for that fact. Notice how the uncircumcised (the one without the written code) can fulfill "the righteous requirements of the law". How? What fulfills that? Love! (ROM. 13: 8, 10; GAL. 5: 14) Love fulfills the righteous requirements of the law. Not the Sabbath. Not the 10 Commandments. But love.
(ROM. 2: 29) but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter...
We have determined legalists will readily admit that they have not kept the law. Armstrong taught certain select parts, yet mankind cannot help but fail. No one has succeeded (but Christ), and no one can. In that, we see that it is the hopeless attempt that counts -- but not an attempt at the whole thing, only the select parts that are recognized.
Then why didn't the attempt at select parts count in the Old Covenant? Because the law was easier and the penalty much harder, but now the law is much harder but the penalty much easier? Interesting.
So, let me get this straight... We both have faith in Jesus Christ, I'm condemned if I don't keep the law, but no one can keep the law anyhow so you're condemned too even if you try to keep the law, but it's OK for you because there's no penalty at failing to keep that select portion of the law? So, both have faith, both fail, but in order for it not to matter you have to at least try to do something no one can possibly do? So the hopeless attempt at keeping the law counts as righteousness?
That's not what God says:
(ROM. 4: 5) But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness
Faith is accounted for righteousness! Is our hopeless and failed attempt actual righteousness? No. But faith is credited as such. Failure is implied as each of us have already failed, but trying to earn is not. It's a gift. It cannot be earned in any sense, so even the beginning of a keeping of the law is moot.
(EPH. 2: 8-9) 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
One must ask, how does any good come if we are such failures, then? And Paul says, "by promise".
(ROM. 4: 13) For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Jesus Christ was the promise. But we are one body and one bread with Christ (I COR. 10: 16-17) through faith (ROM. 4: 13), and thus heirs to this same promise (GAL. 3: 29). The law is not supplementary to that, but is in all actuality contrary to it!
(ROM. 4: 14-15) For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath...
The law does not bring the grace you seek at all, but wrath. The law voids faith and harms the promise. Is that really what you want? But faith establishes it!
(ROM. 4: 23-25) 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.
We are not justified by the law, righteousness is not of law, we are not called to the law, the law is not the gospel, the law can only condemn us.. what good is it, then? What good does anyone hope to gain from it?
(GAL. 2: 16) knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
(GAL. 2: 21) I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.
(ROM. 5: 1-2) Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Final conclusion:
All evidence points to justification by faith, not by the law. I ask people to not fall into the false impression that "works" = "law". The law (even though the law itself is righteous) is contrary to this gift of faith. The gift is by grace so that no one can boast.
Loved by God, I hope we can clearly see why Argument #1 is simply not feasible. God bless you and prosper you in your studies and prayers into this. I pray He graces you with a clear understanding of the New Covenant to which all Christians hope to attain.
************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom.
************
16 comments:
Thanx xHWA, good points, and made me laugh.
"So I am to believe, after all mankind was already made guilty, that Jesus then made it far easier to be made guilty?"
"If you have no hope then you have no hope. There can't be extra EXTRA no hope"
Thanks backatcha, Luc, for the compliment. And you're welcome.
Glad I could make somebody laugh around here.
Hi xHWA,
You know, I read what you have written here, and I have read a number of other such articles. And I think ‘Am I missing something here?’, because what you are actually doing in your life is probably in many ways very similar to what I am doing, yet I am branded as a ‘legalist’.
Let me explain a little further. I believe a Christian should keep the 10 commandments. Now that apparently makes me a ‘legalist’. But how does this work?
Let’s look at just one point – you shall not commit adultery (Ex 20v14). In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus explains this a little further. To me He is showing the fuller intent of the principle that God has in mind for humans i.e. not only the physical act of adultery, but to even think it in your mind is in effect breaking this principle.
How does this work in practise, in my view? As you rightly say, no man can keep the law perfectly. So I know this principle, and I try to live by it, staying close to God, and asking His help to follow this and other principles. OK, so let’s say I slip up on this point, and have a wrong, lustful thought. I have broken the law that I was striving to not break.
However because of the sacrifice of Jesus, and His grace, I can come to Him and my sin is covered, blotted out by His shed blood. I haven’t lived perfectly, cannot live perfectly, but through Jesus I can. That is my ‘legalist’ view.
But how about in your case? I don’t believe that you are saying that because you can do nothing yourself, and the law has been done away anyway, that you can go around lusting at the opposite sex.
I don’t believe that you think that at all. So staying on this same point, I think that you too are aware that God doesn’t want you to be lusting after other women, and that you no doubt take steps not to do so, but again it is possible that you would fail on occasion. And once again the grace of Jesus covers you.
Now if I have got this right, can you tell me where the difference is? What is it that makes me a 'legalist' and you not? I have been trying to actually understand this these last fifteen years, and no one has produced an answer that actually explains this to me.
I don’t believe that I am particularly stupid, so maybe you, as you have more recently been involved in a COG, can understand the point I am making, and can explain what is the difference? I don’t need a long explanation, the shorter the better.
Do I just not understand some basic point, or is there no point to understand? I do ask this very sincerely.
Hi Questeruk!
I do not in any way think you're stupid. Just the opposite! I can tell your comment is sincere, and I thank you for feeling comfortable enough to ask it! I am honored that you did. Thank you.
What prompts me to use the term "legalist", is one of two things (or both).
1) A person who condemns others for not keeping some portion of the law.
Paul makes it clear that there are standards (a law of faith). We should most certainly try to keep those. Whether you feel something is binding on you or not, be fully convinced in your own mind! But don't condemn others.
I spend a good deal of time pointing out that Armstrongists don't keep the whole law in hopes that people will see that they are only condemning themselves. I hope they will stop and turn to faith.
I spent a good amount of time in the COGs condemning others. That, IMHO, is the single greatest flaw of Armstrongism.
2) A person who thinks the law gives them any advantage.
The COGs distinguish themselves from other churches in that they set out (on a hopeless attempt) to keep the law. We always said, only the people who keep God's laws (meaning, the Old Covenant laws) are going to be in the Kingdom. Armstrong wrote volumes about how faith was insufficient. But the New Covenant simply does not agree with that. We aren't in the Old Covenant.
I spend a lot of time showing how all people fail to keep the law. Not to accuse them, but in hopes they will see the superiority of faith over law keeping. Even if i perfectly kept the 10 Commandments, my righteousness is like filthy rags. I need Jesus's righteousness, not my own.
Now, if neither of these two things fit you, I would say that, by my personal reckoning, you are not really a legalist.
I hope more of your question is answered in my next few posts. If you would like to discuss anything at all, and I would love to talk with you, please email me!
This thing about Herbert changing the law...
What is he? God?
No one sees anything WRONG with that?!
IRT the law... There is an old law and a new law. Some of you may know them as the Old Covenant & the New Covenant, which is literally the Old Contract & the New Contract.
And contracts cannot be added to or changed, God's or man's... but a NEW one can be made.
IRT the 10 Commandments...
They are only 10 examples of how to love.
The OC began before, and went far beyond chapter 20. It's not about the 10 commandments. It's about loving one another. Re-read those verses xHWA gave, they spell it out so very clearly.
Just clear your mind and let the Bible speak.
That's a true story, Seeker!
Quest, one more thing, and I believe it's as small a summary of the whole matter as I can get. I can't get it into the words I want, so please bear with me and pray about it.
As our effort completely failed and we were hopeless, Jesus' effort completely succeeded, sealed up the sum, and we are fully saved. It is finished. There is nothing we can add. It's not that we must keep the law and Jesus makes up the difference, as if we put drops in a bucket and He fills the rest -- it is that He did it already once and for all, and now His Spirit grants us to do our best with what He has given us. The bucket is full. That is graced to us by faith. Do your best as you are fully convinced you should.
He didn't come to make us better. He came to replace us.
The purpose of the law was to expose sins and make sin "utterly sinful."
When one lusts after a woman in the mind, they demonstrate, as a result, their "carnality." The law reveals what we, as sons of Adam, truly are.
So, do we continue to live by the law, thus bringing the judgment of the law on ourselves as a result? For to live by the law is to be subject to the law, and the penalty it brings with it.
A Christian is freed from the law; dead to the law; dead to sin. There is a victory the Christian has over sin, the law, and the resultant death penalty ( I Cor. 15:54-7).
The law was to lead people to Christ, who is the way out of the dilemma. Live by the law; under the law, and remain condemned. Live by faith, and live, having your life hid in Christ. One whose life is "buried" in Christ is no longer subject to that law, now being sons of God, and no longer sons of Adam. The works of the law become irrelevant -- those laws that say "do this" and "don't do that" that have little to do with exposing the carnal nature that is revealed through the thoughts of the heart in the example of lust. You can't help it, it just happens, and you concur that the law justly condemns you. Why then remain under the law that condemns, thus also remaining under condemnation?
My definition of a legalist is one who requires a list of requirements to do what is right. A moral non legalist is able to derive the rights and wrongs from a basic principle.
The laws of modern nations are legalistic. Every possible infringement must be anticipated, specified, and language added to the law as a remedy. The legalist who only recognizes the law may feel perfectly within his or her rights to take advantage of a loophole as we have seen in that clever lawyers extricate clearly guilty criminals from the jaws of justice.
Imagine a tribe of people that employ the golden rule. If a member does something wrong, everyone knows it because their culture exercises the idea of reciprocal morality daily, it’s part of how they think. No vast accumulation of lists and specifications are required, and no loopholes are recognized.
For those unaccustomed to principle based law, a list or two is useful, but a list is no longer all powerful. Thinking is required; the ability to make judgments is fundamental, but freedom is gained from unthinking, impersonal gears of list based law and its unfeeling retribution.
Well said, Anon. I agree.
I didn't get that far in this post, but that is right on as far as I understand things!
Luc,
Sounds like a fine definition to me.
And I believe it meshes well with Anon's comment. We are all giving a complimentary piece of the puzzle.
Thanks for all your input on my question. It has helped a bit.
There is something that ‘Seeker’ said which maybe is the crux of the question:-
“There is an old law and a new law. Some of you may know them as the Old Covenant & the New Covenant, which is literally the Old Contract & the New Contract.
And contracts cannot be added to or changed, God's or man's... but a NEW one can be made.”
I believe this may be where our main difference is. The statement that contracts cannot be added to or changed, God’s or man’s.
Is that actually true? How about man’s contracts? I have several credit cards. When I first got a specific card, I was issued with a contract, detailing everything that the card issuer was expecting me to do, and what they were going to do on their part.
Since that time, I regularly get updates to this contract. A letter may come, referring to maybe a couple of sections – changes to section 2c and 5b or whatever. So I can see this is a change, but all the other sections still apply; only the specified ones have changed.
Over the years I might have a number of letters, changing several different sections – but they aren’t the contract – the contract is the original document, with these later documented changes added to it. If a section has not been changed, then the original section still applies.
Who can change the contract? Only the credit card issuer – I cannot write my own rules, and tell the issuer this is what we are doing now – but they can.
If I only read the amendment letters that they have issued, I would be aware of some of the requirements, but there is a whole lot of things that I would not be aware of – I would need the original contract for that.
I do firmly believe that the Bible reads like that too. God has issued the contract, and only He can change it, not mankind. And this is what we find in the NT. The main reason for the changes is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and the availability of the Holy Spirit. To allow for this the contract has been updated.
So we find some things have been expanded – the example I quoted in my previous post, re adultery. While in the OC it was referring to the physical act, now God can show us the fuller application that the offence starts in the mind – that’s where it needs to be controlled.
Other things have been changed completely. Swearing an oath, for example. That was permitted in the OC – now with the help of the Holy Spirit, it should not be necessary. A Christian should be telling the truth as a matter of course.
Some things are new. The Passover symbols were introduced, commemorating the sacrifice of Christ. This did not apply until Christ made His sacrifice. The ceremony of baptism is also new – in the OC the Holy Spirit was not readily available, so individual baptism did not apply.
So many times in the NT there are references back to the OT. Many times it is quoted as the authority, the reason that a particular thing applies, sometimes to change it, sometimes to reinforce it, sometimes just to point out that is where the authority come from.
As in any contract change, it would be invalid to suppose that if a particular section was not mentioned, it no longer applied. The reason it wasn’t mentioned was because it HADN’T changed, and did still apply.
Imagine trying to make full sense of the NT, if you had never read, or even heard of the OT. Constantly the NT would be referring back to some document that you had never seen, often quoting a section, and sometimes changing a section. How could you hope to have full, deep understanding of what is being talked about if you had no sight of, or knowledge of the original document?
I think that this may be the crux of our differing understanding. You see the NT as a totally new contract, with no relevance to the old, while I see Bible as a whole being God’s word, and the original OC being updated, following the sacrifice of Christ, and the availability of the Holy Spirit.
Quest,
I used to think that too until it occurred to me that the death of one of the parties to any contract invalidates it. Take marriage for example. When the husband dies, the wife is no longer subject to any portion of their marriage.
And Jesus' death thus invalidated the covenant with Israel. Which was a marriage contract, after all. It thus freed Him to create a new contract that included the Gentiles and thus become betrothed to His church.
If the entire Old Covenant wasn't gone, we get into complications with adultery and the like.
oh, btw, Quest.... you're very welcome. Always.
A contract cannot be changed by a party to a contract unless it is specified in the contract that one party may change something prior to entering into the agreement.
Hi Questeruk,
I'm really glad to see you are truly interested in truth and that you examine things presented to you.
IRT the OC/NC issue:
I'm sure you know these scriptures but, they're always good to go over again and again - Paul covers this issue in:
Romans 2, 3:19 through chapter 8
2Corinthians chapters 3-5
Galatians chapters 2-6 (chapter 4 gives a great - and clear - analogy.
Ephesians 2
Colassians 2
Hebrews 8-11
I'd like to pose a question to you, also IRT He.9:1 "Now the first covenant had..."Here's my question: If the covenant was altered, how can there be a first or second covenant, an old or new? Wouldn't it just be "The Covenant"? Of course there are other places that say old and new... it can't be a new one if it was just altered.
You may be interested in reading some articles on this blog, and see what you think of them:
-Works Vs Faith (April 08)
-What Coventant are we bound to? (May 08)
-Galatians; Holy days or pagan days? (May 08)
-Response to Galatians;...(May 08)
-What is the fate of OC keepers? (June 08)
-How do we know what Covenant are we keeping? (Oct 08)
-Response to SJS -how do we know what covenant we are keeping?
That's a lot of reading, but I think it could be quite useful.
Post a Comment