PDA

View Full Version : Objections to The Law



Meh Gerbil
10-11-2016, 04:17 PM
INTRODUCTION
In this thread I'll be posting objections to the Law.
These are areas where the Law, or perhaps more accurately, misuse of the Law, leads to failure.

Before I get into it I'd like to affirm some important things:
1: The Law is of God.
2: The Law is important.
3: The Law is beautiful.
4: The Law had to be fulfilled.

Lastly, this isn't a debate thread.
I'd appreciate it if nobody else would post here.
Feel free to discuss any points made here in other threads.

Thanks.

Meh Gerbil
10-11-2016, 04:25 PM
OBJECTION 1: The Law is Misused As a Means of Control

Behavior:
People love to misused the law in this way because it gives the illusion of control.
Example 1: If I can give 10% and meet the requirement of the law then I don't have to worry about giving 20%. I can pass a stranger on the street and not have a second thought about helping him because I already gave at church.
Example 2: If I live a clean life and obey as best as I can then God will bless me.

Problems:
1: Bad: This makes believers vulnerable to the question of "Why do bad things happen to good people?"
2: Worse: The up and down of fortune on a day-to-day basis because a guessing game of "How did I upset or please God to get X, Y, and Z"?
3: Worst: Instead of living per the directions of the Spirit the person is living per the directions of the Law.

Conclusion:
People worry about a misuse of Grace and yet, as you'll see, the misuse of the Law is actually a much more prevalent problem.
That said, nearly nobody worries about a misapplication of the law outside of the question of Salvation.

Jedidiah
10-11-2016, 04:59 PM
So this is a blog? We can not speak in disagreement?

Meh Gerbil
10-11-2016, 05:19 PM
OBJECTION 2: The Law is builds Segregated Communities

Behavior:
Communities form around adherence to the Law instead of adherence to Grace.
Example 1: I had a pastor who used to joke about being overweight. He'd talk about his plans to go over to X's house after church and overeat. He was an example of, and bragging about, gluttony from the pulpit. All the fat people in the church laughed. However, had someone gone to the pulpit and talked about plans to bugger a stranger in the alley behind a bar that night he'd get the bum's rush. The church had successfully driven gays from the congregation, adopted an us vs. them mentality, and was now completely blind to their own law breaking.

Problems:
1: Adoption of the Law as the stand leaves people defeated. Some law is ignored (out of necessity because if all law was enforced there'd be no community), other law over-emphasized.
2: The community suffers because the really bad people are locked out and cannot be a part of the healing community needed by 'less bad' people locked inside.

Conclusion:
Law based communities segregate the 'bad sinners' from needed healing and the 'good sinners' are left with huge blind spots. Maybe it isn't faithfulness that is destroying your church? Maybe it is the Law? That is what the Law does, BTW.

Jedidiah
10-11-2016, 08:27 PM
OBJECTION 2: The Law is builds Segregated Communities

Behavior:
Communities form around adherence to the Law instead of adherence to Grace.
Example 1: I had a pastor who used to joke about being overweight. He'd talk about his plans to go over to X's house after church and overeat. He was an example of, and bragging about, gluttony from the pulpit. All the fat people in the church laughed. However, had someone gone to the pulpit and talked about plans to bugger a stranger in the alley behind a bar that night he'd get the bum's rush. The church had successfully driven gays from the congregation, adopted an us vs. them mentality, and was now completely blind to their own law breaking.

Problems:
1: Adoption of the Law as the stand leaves people defeated. Some law is ignored (out of necessity because if all law was enforced there'd be no community), other law over-emphasized.
2: The community suffers because the really bad people are locked out and cannot be a part of the healing community needed by 'less bad' people locked inside.

Conclusion:
Law based communities segregate the 'bad sinners' from needed healing and the 'good sinners' are left with huge blind spots. Maybe it isn't faithfulness that is destroying your church? Maybe it is the Law? That is what the Law does, BTW.

No! It is the sinful human nature that does this. I am sure there are churches like this, but I have not seen any. In any case it is not the law it is man.

Meh Gerbil
10-11-2016, 10:43 PM
OBJECTION 3: The Law Is Cherry Picked

Behavior:
Those who invoke the Law as a standard (for purposes of sanctification) aren't actually invoking the Law. At the time the New Testament was written the Law would be the entire 5 books on the Law of Moses and I know of no fundamentalist church that uses that as an actual guide. Even if you cite King David's extensive praise of the Law you have to realize he's talking about the entire Law and not the few moral codes that have been flayed down to nearly nothing (Christians ignore 99% of the Law).

With very few exceptions even those who most adamantly invoke the Law don't even follow all of the 10 commandments - Keep the Sabbath (Saturday) Holy.

You aren't under the Law <---- that phrase didn't free us from just the dietary codes, it freed us from all of it. Freed us to something better.

Conclusion:
The embrace of this vaguely defined 'Law' (some new thing created by legalists not found anywhere in Scripture) is an affront to the actual Law, it is undefined, it is cherry picking, it is nonsense. The Law is all or nothing, people, it is all or nothing, period.

Meh Gerbil
10-12-2016, 03:52 AM
OBJECTION 4: The Law Cannot Sanctify a Person

Behavior:
Some people use obedience to the Law as a means of sanctifying themselves. The obedience to the Law cannot sanctify.
1: If refraining from bad behavior can sanctify a person than the most effective mechanism is our prison system. Hey, the guy isn't robbing liquor stores anymore so he must be sanctified, right? The blind guy who stops viewing pornography must have a renewed mind, eh? A caged sin nature is just a caged sin nature. The cage doesn't change the beast.
2: Jesus went to great lengths to try and illustrate this to the Pharisees. They were 'white washed tombs' - if obedience to the law equals sanctification then the Law folks have to explain the Pharisees who were unsanctified and yet obedient to the Law.

Conclusion:
The Law is entirely incapable of sanctifying a person although using it that way is a really good way to become self-righteous and judgmental. It is being misused.

Jedidiah
10-12-2016, 12:52 PM
OBJECTION 4: The Law Cannot Sanctify a Person

Behavior:
Some people use obedience to the Law as a means of sanctifying themselves. The obedience to the Law cannot sanctify.
1: If refraining from bad behavior can sanctify a person than the most effective mechanism is our prison system. Hey, the guy isn't robbing liquor stores anymore so he must be sanctified, right? The blind guy who stops viewing pornography must have a renewed mind, eh? A caged sin nature is just a caged sin nature. The cage doesn't change the beast.
2: Jesus went to great lengths to try and illustrate this to the Pharisees. They were 'white washed tombs' - if obedience to the law equals sanctification then the Law folks have to explain the Pharisees who were unsanctified and yet obedient to the Law.

Conclusion:
The Law is entirely incapable of sanctifying a person although using it that way is a really good way to become self-righteous and judgmental. It is being misused.
You seem to be arguing against something that does not exist.

Scrawly
10-12-2016, 05:33 PM
You seem to be arguing against something that does not exist.

Actually it does. You'll find belief in sanctification via the law amongst cultic and heretical groups, such as some aberrant sects in Messianic Judaism. Some otherwise solid (albeit generally infantile) Christian believers have fallen into that error as well, and continue to do so.

Jedidiah
10-12-2016, 07:20 PM
Actually it does. You'll find belief in sanctification via the law amongst cultic and heretical groups, such as some aberrant sects in Messianic Judaism. Some otherwise solid (albeit generally infantile) Christian believers have fallen into that error as well, and continue to do so.

I have been asking for some evidence involving those "otherwise solid Christian believers." The only response I get it read this here book. Sure there may be some who believe sanctification through the law. My point is they are outliers, not a common thing. My opinion, failing some substantiation, is that these folks crying foul are for the most part just nominal believers, not real Christians.

Scrawly
10-12-2016, 09:18 PM
I have been asking for some evidence involving those "otherwise solid Christian believers." The only response I get it read this here book. Sure there may be some who believe sanctification through the law. My point is they are outliers, not a common thing. My opinion, failing some substantiation, is that these folks crying foul are for the most part just nominal believers, not real Christians.

OK, so we both agree that the issue does in fact exist. In regards to the prevalence of the error(s), well, "judaizing" has been around since the first century in varying forms. We had a member on Tweb a short time ago who held to this error. I have known people in "real life" who held to this error who were otherwise "running a good race" (see Gal. 5:7). More modern examples include Jim Staley of 'Passion for Truth' ministries - who has drawn disciples away from churches that devote themselves to the "apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." (Acts 2:42).

Furthermore, the issue of the law and it's application in the life of the believer is debated in scholarly circles and continues to be a source of confusion for many bible-believing Christian's. See, for example, the "Radical Perspective on Paul" which argues that Jews are saved under the auspices of the Mosaic Covenant, etc. The fact of the matter is that there is a significant number of believer's out there who accept foundational Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the necessity of faith in the Messiah, etc. who wander off into Sabbath-keeping and observing dietary laws, from which point they can descend into downright heresy surrounding issues of the law.

Scrawly
10-12-2016, 09:20 PM
PS: My apologies MG. I saw that you requested that this thread not turn into a debate thread. The above will be my final post on the matter.

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 06:54 AM
PS: My apologies MG. I saw that you requested that this thread not turn into a debate thread. The above will be my final post on the matter.
Please join us in the other thread on this forum.

Jedidiah
10-13-2016, 09:04 AM
PS: My apologies MG. I saw that you requested that this thread not turn into a debate thread. The above will be my final post on the matter.

Discussion without allowing disagreement is just patting one another on the back and saying nice things.

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 10:14 AM
Discussion without allowing disagreement is just patting one another on the back and saying nice things.
I asked for the points to be discussed in their own threads.
This is because I want to catalog these points (several topics) and not have them buried in a dozen different debates.

I'd ask that a moderator remove all off topic posts in this thread to keep it organized.
Thanks.

Jedidiah
10-15-2016, 01:44 PM
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” The greek work for believe is derived from pistis, which refers not to belief in the existence of something, but being persuaded that what you 'believe' is true and reliable. My experience tells me that if you actually believe something you will act accordingly. Ergo, if you routinely act as though you do not really believe what you claim to believe, it is likely that you do not really believe. This seems to me to be the crux of this whole discussion.

That does not mean that you will never slip up, but it means that your routine, every day behavior will be in accord with what you believe. When you fail you turn back to what you know is right. If you willfully ignore the guidance of the Bible, and do so as a matter of course I would believe that you do not in fact believe (that is put your faith) in Jesus Christ.

I am not saying that you, Gerbil, are not truly a believer, but that the whiners you are listening to are rebelling because they do not honesty trust what they have been told.

Jedidiah
10-15-2016, 02:18 PM
19165

Meh Gerbil
10-18-2016, 08:14 AM
OBJECTION 5: We Are Commanded To Not Use The Law As A Guide

Behavior:
People turn to the law in order to understand how they should order their lives.

Problems:
1: Most of the same problems as described above.
2: Christians are not living by the Spirit but instead living according to cherry picked copies of the Law.

Source:
Galatians directly compares and contrasts life according to the law and life according to the Spirit with them being portrayed in direct opposition to one another. The directives include not only justification truths but continuing in the Spirit with the works of the flesh being contrasted with the works of the Spirit.

Note that the works of the flesh aren't contrasted with the works of trying-really-dang-hard-to-do-the-right-thing. If these things are the Fruit of the Spirit then they're not the result of your efforts to obey the law. The law is no longer our guide for behavior. It is finished.

Meh Gerbil
10-18-2016, 08:17 AM
19165

J.C. Ryle is wrong.

Not only do Christians readily embrace God's Sovereignty but Muslims do the exact same thing by the millions.
All the world's religions have scrubbed grace from their books because that is far and away the most offensive doctrine on the planet.

Also, I've asked you to please stop debating in this thread.
Please take objections elsewhere.

Meh Gerbil
10-18-2016, 08:28 AM
OBJECTION 6: Christians Don't Actually Use The The Law As A Guide

Behavior:
Christians cherry-pick the law.
Examples: Most Christians willfully violate the Sabbath - which is one of the ten commandments. They do this intentionally, willfully, and joyfully I might add. Either they're not saved (intentional sin) or the law doesn't apply. <--- Pick one.

Problems:
1: Hypocrisy
2: Inconsistency in apologetics.

Larger Problem:
This actually harkens back to the original sin, that is, the desire to determine good and evil for oneself. This cherry picking of the law is doing exactly that while rejecting the authority of the Spirit. Those who do this are guilty of the exact rebellion of which they accuse others.

Jedidiah
10-18-2016, 09:42 AM
J.C. Ryle is wrong.

Not only do Christians readily embrace God's Sovereignty but Muslims do the exact same thing by the millions.
All the world's religions have scrubbed grace from their books because that is far and away the most offensive doctrine on the planet.

Also, I've asked you to please stop debating in this thread.
Please take objections elsewhere.

Where will you answer my objections? You have just created a blog here.

Chaotic Void
10-19-2016, 09:27 AM
The Mods have talked this over, and come to the conclusion that the debate points will remain in this thread. This is a debate forum, after all. If you wish to vent your thoughts in an organized fashion without anyone chipping their two cents worth, might I suggest getting a blog?

Meh Gerbil
10-20-2016, 07:36 AM
The Mods have talked this over, and come to the conclusion that the debate points will remain in this thread. This is a debate forum, after all. If you wish to vent your thoughts in an organized fashion without anyone chipping their two cents worth, might I suggest getting a blog?

Here is why I made the request:
1: I've seen people request threads remain free of input from other members (individuals) and I've seen that respected.
2: This request was made in the official Trout/Gerbil forum - this isn't a debate forum, it is all about me, and to a lesser extent, Trout.
3: While there may be no rule to enforce I was hoping a simple request could be honored.
4: There was no attempt to avoid debate. Per the original post I asked the debate be posted elsewhere so that the debate could be easier to follow.

That all said, you're the boss.
I'm not whining or complaining about the decision here nor am I asking for a change to the ruling.
I just wanted to put my reasons on the table for making the request in the first place.

Cheers.

Sparko
10-20-2016, 08:39 AM
Gerbz. we sometimes allow such threads for "informational" threads, like lists of resources or something like that. usually are set up as stickies. But this one is posting pretty provocative statements that seem to be crying out for debate and then you say "nobody else can post here"

if you just want a list for yourself, it seems like you should just open up word document on your computer. There is no reason to post it here on tweb in public. If you want to stir up controversy, then you can't stop debate. Another place you could post personal observations is in your visitor messages in your profile. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/member.php?2051-Meh-Gerbil&tab=visitor_messaging#visitor_messaging

This is your area, but it is not yours to shove into other people's faces. It is for you to run and others to enjoy with you. It isn't your private party.

my two cents.

rogue06
10-20-2016, 08:43 AM
Gerbz. we sometimes allow such threads for "informational" threads, like lists of resources or something like that. usually are set up as stickies. But this one is posting pretty provocative statements that seem to be crying out for debate and then you say "nobody else can post here"

if you just want a list for yourself, it seems like you should just open up word document on your computer. There is no reason to post it here on tweb in public. If you want to stir up controversy, then you can't stop debate. Another place you could post personal observations is in your visitor messages in your profile. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/member.php?2051-Meh-Gerbil&tab=visitor_messaging#visitor_messaging

This is your area, but it is not yours to shove into other people's faces. It is for you to run and others to enjoy with you. It isn't your private party.

my two cents.
I should note that the very few cases where someone "request[ed] threads remain free of input from other members (individuals) and I've seen that respected" made that request in advance before starting the thread.

Meh Gerbil
10-20-2016, 09:02 AM
Thank you for the clarifications.