Legalism empowers DEMONS in your life!

[Mitspa]

Well we have to go to scripture to see that is indeed the intention of God, that He desires us to have an obedience that is based on His ability in us and not based on our own strength in the natural body or mind.
At the end of that obedience the flesh has no room to glory in anything but in God...The goodness God placed in me, often makes me wonder and glory at Him...Now I also still see the old man that has to brought into submission to the death of Christ.

I also want to add that the scriptures don't teach love keeps part of the law, it teaches love keeps all the law...every commandment is fulfilled in love...its also makes clear that legalism the (letter) is NOT obedience ...so then it should be clear to all that obedience is love, not legalism .

 

[kennethcadwell]

We establish the moral law. Romans 13 talks about how we when we love our neighbor, we fulfill the law of not coveting, stealing, etc. The OT Law as an entire package is no longer binding. For Jesus changed things. He said turn the other cheek instead of an eye for an eye. The Lord God told Peter in a vision to break the OT Law and eat unclean animals. Christians today are not seeking to rebuild the Temple to reinstitute the Temple sacrifices again (Which was a part of the Law).

He wasn't telling Peter to break the law by eating unclean animals.
He was showing Paul that He made all things clean now, and it was not unlawful to eat them now.

 

[kennethcadwell]

He wasn't telling Peter to break the law by eating unclean animals.
He was showing Paul that He made all things clean now, and it was not unlawful to eat them now.

I type to fast sometimes and meant Peter, and I use Paul a lot because that is who the Holy Spirit has brought me to study the most from.

 

[sparty-g]

Well we have to go to scripture to see that is indeed the intention of God, that He desires us to have an obedience that is based on His ability in us and not based on our own strength in the natural body or mind.
At the end of that obedience the flesh has no room to glory in anything but in God...The goodness God placed in me, often makes me wonder and glory at Him...Now I also still see the old man that has to brought into submission to the death of Christ.

I also want to add that the scriptures don't teach love keeps part of the law, it teaches love keeps all the law...every commandment is fulfilled in love...its also makes clear that legalism the (letter) is NOT obedience ...so then it should be clear to all that obedience is love, not legalism .

It sounds like you have an admirable love for others and an honest desire to live out the will of God -- something we can all respect even if our own studies of the Scriptures lead us to different conclusions about how to do that.

So, to recap, the Holy Spirit leads you to express a supernatural love for others -- something I assume is also true for how you express your love for God -- and you go to the Scriptures to test whether or not that is indeed the intention of God, right? To which part of the Scriptures do you turn when you are testing what you believe to be the leading of the Holy Spirit?

You said the Holy Spirit leads you to do by Divine Nature the things contained in the Law. So, for example, this means the Holy Spirit leads you to feel you should not steal from others, and you verify this is indeed God's will by finding evidence in the Scriptures? The early evidence of which is Ex. 20:15. Is this a correct way of outlining your process?

And please, if you will, provide a clear, practical definition of legalism. I'm enjoying this back and forth but it's difficult for me to comment on parts of your post when I don't know how you define legalism. From browsing through the entire thread, I suspect part of the differences of perspective between you and Jason is due to you both employing different definitions for terms -- you may be thinking of legalism and being "under the law" in different ways. I happen to think these two terms mean different things, for example, but I get a sense from some of the posts here that some people use them synonymously.

 

[Mitspa]

It sounds like you have an admirable love for others and an honest desire to live out the will of God -- something we can all respect even if our own studies of the Scriptures lead us to different conclusions about how to do that.

So, to recap, the Holy Spirit leads you to express a supernatural love for others -- something I assume is also true for how you express your love for God -- and you go to the Scriptures to test whether or not that is indeed the intention of God, right? To which part of the Scriptures do you turn when you are testing what you believe to be the leading of the Holy Spirit?

You said the Holy Spirit leads you to do by Divine Nature the things contained in the Law. So, for example, this means the Holy Spirit leads you to feel you should not steal from others, and you verify this is indeed God's will by finding evidence in the Scriptures? The early evidence of which is Ex. 20:15. Is this a correct way of outlining your process?

And please, if you will, provide a clear, practical definition of legalism. I'm enjoying this back and forth but it's difficult for me to comment on parts of your post when I don't know how you define legalism. From browsing through the entire thread, I suspect part of the differences of perspective between you and Jason is due to you both employing different definitions for terms -- you may be thinking of legalism and being "under the law" in different ways. I happen to think these two terms mean different things, for example, but I get a sense from some of the posts here that some people use them synonymously.

I don't know that your seeing exactly why im trying to express but you seem to have the heart of it.. and I think a true bible student should have a understanding of all scripture and be able to rightly divide its truth in regards the Cross of the Lord. And what I said was exactly what the bible teaches, that the Holy Spirit sheds the love of God abroad in our hearts and that love fulfills all the law. In effect that is the true law of God, not the written code, but the Spirit of God.

Legalism is best described as those who try to obey God by the "letter" and not by the "Spirit"... the "letter" meaning the legal code or dogma of the law. But that could extend unto any religious work to justify oneself apart from faith.

 

[Mitspa]

Many Pentecostal and Charismatic preachers also tend toward legalism. I really think that some of this is because many of the leaders are also control freaks and pulpit bullies. They want to micro-manage every aspect of their congregation's spiritual walk. (e.g. You better tithe to me brother because I need the money! You need to speak in tongues so I know you are sold on the Pentecostal doctrine. You need to fall when I touch you brother because if you do not you have not submitted to me and that is not acceptable etc. etc.). Many legalists in both the Baptist and the Pentecostal denominations can be found beating up on their flock each Sunday to try to whip them into Christian shape. The pastors become like drill sergeants who talk down to their squad. Many have the nature of school yard bullies rather than the nature of shepherds. Instead of beating up the flock in the flesh they might instead talk about the spiritual calling of Christians. They might tell the people what love God has for them displayed by Jesus taking their sins upon Himself and what God promises in the future for those who trust Jesus with their lives. Preaching that mankind should stay holy through their own effort will only result in failure and bring guilt that makes Christians doubt their salvation. What kind of gospel (good news) is that? The same people get saved over and over again in services and rallies mainly because someone made them doubt their salvation.

 

[The_highwayman]

Many Pentecostal and Charismatic preachers also tend toward legalism. I really think that some of this is because many of the leaders are also control freaks and pulpit bullies. They want to micro-manage every aspect of their congregation's spiritual walk. (e.g. You better tithe to me brother because I need the money! You need to speak in tongues so I know you are sold on the Pentecostal doctrine. You need to fall when I touch you brother because if you do not you have not submitted to me and that is not acceptable etc. etc.). Many legalists in both the Baptist and the Pentecostal denominations can be found beating up on their flock each Sunday to try to whip them into Christian shape. The pastors become like drill sergeants who talk down to their squad. Many have the nature of school yard bullies rather than the nature of shepherds. Instead of beating up the flock in the flesh they might instead talk about the spiritual calling of Christians. They might tell the people what love God has for them displayed by Jesus taking their sins upon Himself and what God promises in the future for those who trust Jesus with their lives. Preaching that mankind should stay holy through their own effort will only result in failure and bring guilt that makes Christians doubt their salvation. What kind of gospel (good news) is that? The same people get saved over and over again in services and rallies mainly because someone made them doubt their salvation.

what is your definition of legalism?

I do not disagree with what you have said here at all....but in fairness I think you are calling something legalism that is not at all legalism and peeps are getting tired of the same old rant, dressed up as a new OP....

 

[Mitspa]

what is your definition of legalism?

I do not disagree with what you have said here at all....but in fairness I think you are calling something legalism that is not at all legalism and peeps are getting tired of the same old rant, dressed up as a new OP....

Do you have a group you represent here on the forum? because I continue to get positive feedback from many other members in bringing up this issue?

and I gave a brief definition above in post #165

I would also add that just as legalism was the most pressing issue in the times of Paul, its is still the most destructive issue in the church today.

 

[The_highwayman]

Do you have a group you represent here on the forum? because I continue to get positive feedback from many other members in bringing up this issue?

and I gave a brief definition above in post #165

I would also add that just as legalism was the most pressing issue in the times of Paul, its is still the most destructive issue in the church today.

Ok so are you saying people who cling to Mosaic Law are legalistic?

 

[Mitspa]

Ok so are you saying people who cling to Mosaic Law are legalistic?

here is what I posted...

Legalism is best described as those who try to obey God by the "letter" and not by the "Spirit"... the "letter" meaning the legal code or dogma of the law. But that could extend unto any religious work to justify oneself apart from faith.

 

[The_highwayman]

here is what I posted...

Legalism is best described as those who try to obey God by the "letter" and not by the "Spirit"... the "letter" meaning the legal code or dogma of the law. But that could extend unto any religious work to justify oneself apart from faith.

Ok thanks I appreciate it....

 

[sparty-g]

I don't know that your seeing exactly why im trying to express but you seem to have the heart of it.. and I think a true bible student should have a understanding of all scripture and be able to rightly divide its truth in regards the Cross of the Lord. And what I said was exactly what the bible teaches, that the Holy Spirit sheds the love of God abroad in our hearts and that love fulfills all the law. In effect that is the true law of God, not the written code, but the Spirit of God.

Legalism is best described as those who try to obey God by the "letter" and not by the "Spirit"... the "letter" meaning the legal code or dogma of the law. But that could extend unto any religious work to justify oneself apart from faith.

I'm likely not understanding exactly what you're trying to express, but I'm asking questions to try to get a better understanding of your view, so I thank you for taking the time to answer them.

I try to use the full counsel of God to guide my life -- that being the Scriptures (cover to cover), the example of the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit. I also believe, like you, that love fulfills the Law. But I'm using "fulfill" in the sense that love brings forth the full intended meaning and goal of the Law and it completes the Law in the sense that it is an integral component of the Law. In this sense, I'm trying to depict a unity between the "letter of the Law" (the legal code, as you call it -- what God handed down to us in writing through the prophets) and the "spirit of the Law."

I might be misunderstanding your definition of legalism. Are you saying that a legalist keeps only the "letter of the Law" and not the "spirit of the Law," while a non-legalist keeps both the "letter of the Law" and the "spirit of the Law"? Or are you saying the non-legalist keeps only the "spirit of the Law" and not the "letter of the Law"?

To give a practical example, the "letter of the Law" says not to commit adultery. The Messiah expounds on this, teaching about the "spirit of the Law" (if you want to call it such), and says that to even look at someone with lust is committing adultery in the heart. In this case, wouldn't it make sense to teach that we should be keeping both the letter and the spirit? As the Messiah is certainly implying, I would teach someone to both not commit physical adultery or lust after another. This is generally how I approach a life serving God in the Messiah: it's not just about outward appearances and actions, but the inside of the cup must also be cleansed, which is through the blood of the Messiah and continually renewed by guidance of the Holy Spirit, which leads us away from works of iniquity/unrighteousness and toward works of obedience in love. Are there cases where keeping the "spirit of the Law" does away with the need to keep the "letter of Law"? There may be some but I wouldn't say this is the general case. In practice, I would personally default toward needing to follow both and would need to single out the cases where some spiritual sense of the Law takes away the need to keep the physical or letter sense of the Law, and even some of those are probably debatable.

I believe that keeping the "letter of the Law" without the "spirit of the Law" produces dead works, with which you may agree, but I'm not sure I would say this is the full Biblical theological definition of legalism. I would refine the definition to say that legalism is attempting to earn salvation through obedience to the Law. Thus, it's not legalistic to teach people to keep the command to not physically commit adultery because this should be the response of someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit to abide in God's will by love. I would say it is legalistic to tell someone they are not saved by grace through faith in the Messiah but instead must first prove themselves by keeping this or other commands and that salvation is made manifest at some later point once we have demonstrated we are worthy. That's not good news at all, but it is good news that God will save us through faith not as a result of our works or actions, and His Spirit will transform us and enable us to live out His will as communicated in the instructions He has provided for us through His Word, the example of the Messiah, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I get a sense that many people employ a more conventional definition of the word "legalism," -- they are against someone who would compel another believer to keep a certain command that is not generally practiced by the wider body of believers today. For example, they are alright with one teaching someone else to not commit adultery, but as soon as one teaches another not to eat unclean meats, they will quickly call them a legalist. In this sense, the two definitions of legalism that I presented (the theological one, and the conventional one) are not the same.

Looking forward to your response.

 

[Mitspa]

I'm likely not understanding exactly what you're trying to express, but I'm asking questions to try to get a better understanding of your view, so I thank you for taking the time to answer them.

I try to use the full counsel of God to guide my life -- that being the Scriptures (cover to cover), the example of the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit. I also believe, like you, that love fulfills the Law. But I'm using "fulfill" in the sense that love brings forth the full intended meaning and goal of the Law and it completes the Law in the sense that it is an integral component of the Law. In this sense, I'm trying to depict a unity between the "letter of the Law" (the legal code, as you call it -- what God handed down to us in writing through the prophets) and the "spirit of the Law."

I might be misunderstanding your definition of legalism. Are you saying that a legalist keeps only the "letter of the Law" and not the "spirit of the Law," while a non-legalist keeps both the "letter of the Law" and the "spirit of the Law"? Or are you saying the non-legalist keeps only the "spirit of the Law" and not the "letter of the Law"?

To give a practical example, the "letter of the Law" says not to commit adultery. The Messiah expounds on this, teaching about the "spirit of the Law" (if you want to call it such), and says that to even look at someone with lust is committing adultery in the heart. In this case, wouldn't it make sense to teach that we should be keeping both the letter and the spirit? As the Messiah is certainly implying, I would teach someone to both not commit physical adultery or lust after another. This is generally how I approach a life serving God in the Messiah: it's not just about outward appearances and actions, but the inside of the cup must also be cleansed, which is through the blood of the Messiah and continually renewed by guidance of the Holy Spirit, which leads us away from works of iniquity/unrighteousness and toward works of obedience in love. Are there cases where keeping the "spirit of the Law" does away with the need to keep the "letter of Law"? There may be some but I wouldn't say this is the general case. In practice, I would personally default toward needing to follow both and would need to single out the cases where some spiritual sense of the Law takes away the need to keep the physical or letter sense of the Law, and even some of those are probably debatable.

I believe that keeping the "letter of the Law" without the "spirit of the Law" produces dead works, with which you may agree, but I'm not sure I would say this is the full Biblical theological definition of legalism. I would refine the definition to say that legalism is attempting to earn salvation through obedience to the Law. Thus, it's not legalistic to teach people to keep the command to not physically commit adultery because this should be the response of someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit to abide in God's will by love. I would say it is legalistic to tell someone they are not saved by grace through faith in the Messiah but instead must first prove themselves by keeping this or other commands and that salvation is made manifest at some later point once we have demonstrated we are worthy. That's not good news at all, but it is good news that God will save us through faith not as a result of our works or actions, and His Spirit will transform us and enable us to live out His will as communicated in the instructions He has provided for us through His Word, the example of the Messiah, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I get a sense that many people employ a more conventional definition of the word "legalism," -- they are against someone who would compel another believer to keep a certain command that is not generally practiced by the wider body of believers today. For example, they are alright with one teaching someone else to not commit adultery, but as soon as one teaches another not to eat unclean meats, they will quickly call them a legalist. In this sense, the two definitions of legalism that I presented (the theological one, and the conventional one) are not the same.

Looking forward to your response.

Just one question first, where do you get the term "spirit of the law" that's not a biblical term...the "law of the Spirit" is a correct biblical term to describe the obedience to the Spirit and not to the written code of the law.

Also when the term "whole counsel of God" is used by Paul, he refers directly to the "word of grace"

Ac 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

Ac 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

Ac 20:32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

So its really hard to reason with you on much of your post because you seem to have established some of your points on error, or lack of understanding?

 

[Mitspa]

Just one question first, where do you get the term "spirit of the law" that's not a biblical term...the "law of the Spirit" is a correct biblical term to describe the obedience to the Spirit and not to the written code of the law.

Also when the term "whole counsel of God" is used by Paul, he refers directly to the "word of grace"

Ac 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

Ac 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

Ac 20:32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

So its really hard to reason with you on much of your post because you seem to have established some of your points on error, or lack of understanding?

Think I should add some scripture to make the point that at no time does the bible refer to obedience to "the spirit of the law" that implies the literal legalistic standard of the law can be kept by some unclear standard that cannot be shown in scripture.

And at no time does the scriptures tells us we can keep a mixture of the legal standard of the law and the law of the Spirit... you can not be justified by the flesh and the spirit at the same time...works of law and grace...it don't work that way.

Ro 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Ro 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2Co 3:6 ¶ Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

2Co 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

 

[Jason0047]

Dear Brother Jason, how often do you go before the Lord in repentance? I mean no disrespect as I do admire your steadfast studying of the Word of God and your heart toward Christ Jesus. I am just wondering, if you believe that we must continually strive to be holy, how do you apply this truth:

Martha had a sister named Mary who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what He was saying. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations she felt she had to do. Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, don’t You care that my sister has left me to do all these things by myself? Tell her to help me.”
“Martha, Martha,” Jesus answered, “You are worried and concerned about so many things. But only one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen what is better and I won’t take that away from her.”

The grace of Jesus Christ offers us the miraculous freedom to be done with the matter of striving. Otherwise, we are left with a continual battle of trying to perform but never able to accomplish holiness. It is enough that Jesus is holy and that we sit at His feet and be captivated by Him.

Just receiving the Father's unconditional love, hearing His Voice via the Holy Spirit, and believing the Redemption of Jesus Christ has made me free to be made more into His image.

Dear VR:

Thank you for your kind words. You are a joy to talk to.

As for concerning how often do I go before the Lord in repentance: Well, seeing God's Word is the standard for our life (And not my personal life), what you really want to know is how often does a believer go before the Lord if they sin (According to the Scriptures). Well, the Bible says if we confess our sin, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). The Bible says to us as the brethren, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. This means that as many times you sin, you are to confess that sin. 1 John 1:7 says if we walk in the light as he is in the light the blood of Jesus Christ will cleanse us from all sin. So confessing sin involves forsaking it, as well. This is true repentace. For Job 28:28 says, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to depart from evil is understanding. This is the same theme that is understood within the epistle of John. 1 John 2:3 says, hereby we know that we know him if we keep his commandments. What are the big commandments for us under the New Testament that Christ gave us? To love God and to love our neighbor (Including our enemies). 1 John 3:10 says, In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

So the idea that all future sin is forgiven and that we do not to worry about sin (so as not to confess or forsake sin) so we can let it fester in our lives whereby we can hate others would make us false believers and not true believers according to Scripture. Sin must be treated. Not by ourselves by going out and doing a bunch of holy works to offset that sin. Sin must be treated by the Savior, Jesus Christ. Only in our falling down before Him, can we have any hope of salvation. Not just in Justification (As if we needed Jesus one time in our life), but in Sanctification, too. For Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. So we have to let Him continue to work His grace and righteousness within our life. For our life with Jesus is a walk or a relationship and not a one time meeting whereby he zaps us into his kingdom with a salvation power gun for all time. For a believer must always abide in the Son or they do not have life (See 1 John 5:12). For God never forces us into His Kingdom. We must choose this day whom we will serve not just one time in our life, but every day.

As for Mary vs. Martha: This can be a very deep and fruitful study for those who desire to pursue it. There is a lot of gold here. Martha was busy in serving the Lord but like the church in Revelation (Who was also full of good works), but they did not develop that close heart relationship with God whereby they could be still enough to hear God's voice to do His will (As He wanted them to do). Mary was being still. She was being still so as to worship God and to hear from Him. Psalm 46:10 says be still and know that He is God. For He is our refuge and our strength. Our refuge and our strength is not in what we do. That is what Martha was doing wrong. She was dictating to Jesus and saying that Mary must join her. Who is being Lord here? Jesus or Martha? Mary had the "good" part because she rejoiced in God her Savior as Jesus' mother (Who was also named Mary). Mary was also listening to Jesus. Hebrews 6:5 says, true believers have tasted of the "good" word of God. For Jesus says His words are spirit and they are life. Mary wanted to be quite so as to catch an opportunity to hear Her Lord speak. For man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word of God that he speaks. Martha was seeking her own way in trying to please the Lord. It was all about what she thought was good for God. Mary actually wanted to truthfully and patiently wait upon the Lord and seek His Kingdom in His timing and not her own. Mary was truly seeking first the Kingdom of God. She did not need worry. Martha was worrying about things that the Lord did not specifically call her to do for Him. Mary had the "good" part. She was waiting upon the Lord and seeking Him and His will and what her Lord wanted her to do.

However, Mary and Martha is not an example whereby we do nothing for God, though. While we are not saved by being holy and or in doing works in and of itself; However, they are the natural result of having been saved and or in having Jesus Christ living within your life. A true believer cannot live unrighteously as a way of life expect to enter the Kingdom of God. It doesn't work like that. Look up the word "good" at Blue Letter Bible within the New Testament and see how many times that the word "good" is associated with the fruit of the believer. Yes, Jesus is the good shepherd; And we cannot do any good without Him. For Jesus is the One who does the "good work" within us. For there is none good but God. We get clean, transformed, and renewed spirits by the washing of the regeneration of the Holy Ghost. Only God can do this. He then lives within us and does the "good work." It's not ourselves. We cannot take the credit. All glory, honor, and power goes to Jesus Christ for our salvation. Our boasting is in Him and not the arm of our flesh. For without Christ we are nothing. Without Him, there is no salvation. For Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

 

[Jason0047]

He wasn't telling Peter to break the law by eating unclean animals.
He was showing Paul that He made all things clean now, and it was not unlawful to eat them now.

Sorry about that, my friend. Poor choice of words. I should have worded that better. From a Jewish person's perspective who thinks the Law was still binding, this is how it would look to him. My point was is that the OT law had changed and or was no longer binding (or in effect).

 

[Jason0047]

Dear Brother Jason, how often do you go before the Lord in repentance? I mean no disrespect as I do admire your steadfast studying of the Word of God and your heart toward Christ Jesus. I am just wondering, if you believe that we must continually strive to be holy, how do you apply this truth:

Martha had a sister named Mary who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what He was saying. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations she felt she had to do. Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, don’t You care that my sister has left me to do all these things by myself? Tell her to help me.”
“Martha, Martha,” Jesus answered, “You are worried and concerned about so many things. But only one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen what is better and I won’t take that away from her.”

The grace of Jesus Christ offers us the miraculous freedom to be done with the matter of striving. Otherwise, we are left with a continual battle of trying to perform but never able to accomplish holiness. It is enough that Jesus is holy and that we sit at His feet and be captivated by Him.

Just receiving the Father's unconditional love, hearing His Voice via the Holy Spirit, and believing the Redemption of Jesus Christ has made me free to be made more into His image.

Dear VR:

Speaking of Martha: There are two other servants of God who are similar to her. I just had recently written about that here in my Commentary on the Stories of the Bible thread (If you are interested).

Anyways, may God's love shine upon you greatly today.
And please be well.

Sincerely,

~Jason.


...

 

[VCO]

I also want to add that the scriptures don't teach love keeps part of the law, it teaches love keeps all the law...every commandment is fulfilled in love...its also makes clear that legalism the (letter) is NOT obedience ...so then it should be clear to all that obedience is love, not legalism .

James 2:8-10 (NIV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right.
{How many meals have fed to the homeless and poor in your town, compared to how many meals you fed yourself?}
[SUP]9 [/SUP] But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point
is guilty of breaking all of it.

Looks like you are in a HEEP of Trouble with GOD with that theory.

 

[Jason0047]

James 2:8-10 (NIV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right.
{How many meals have fed to the homeless and poor in your town, compared to how many meals you fed yourself?}
[SUP]9 [/SUP] But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point
is guilty of breaking all of it.

Looks like you are in a HEEP of Trouble with GOD with that theory.

So you believe you can sin and still be saved? Is that it?

James is not talking about providing for your basic needs versus giving to others. He is talking about favoritism of others. For he that does not provide for his own family is worse than an infidel. Scripture says give according to what God has purposed in your heart. For God loves a cheerful giver. It's only if you are rich and or hoarding onto a bunch of money that the Lord desires you to be willing to distribute.

Believers could actually still own their own their own houses. Servant masters could still keep their servants. Paul actually worked as a tentmaker. He did this so as not to charge for the gospel.

But if you think God does not require us to live godly, you are dead wrong, my friend. Paul himself essentially said if any man teaches contrary to the words of Jesus and the doctrine of godliness is proud and knows nothing (1 Timothy 6:3-4). Do you believe Paul?

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Nothing pleases the devil more than...

Christians miss quoting the Bible and fighting about what they don't understand. You are constantly battling against legalism and if you feel so strongly about it don't read the Torah (first five books of the Bible). Disregards the rest of the Old Testament and move on brother. Try to understand the New Testament without the Old Testament is like trying to understand computers without a keyboard and CPU. It can't be done... and in the end your knowledge could be deemed useless because you miss interpret the word.

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.

The Bible never told you the law will save you and I have said this to you time and time again but you don't want to listen so I will not repeat this again. Think what you will and keep on paddling in your pond with one oar...