In the BDF we have threads created with the intent of tearing down Legalism, to reveal it for what it is. A complete distrust in the finished work of Jesus Christ, at the cross of Calvary. We have those of the grace community debating with those some might be inclined to define as Legalists. The grace community will tell you that it is by Jesus we are saved. Simply put, we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The legalistic community on the other hand will tell you that there is more to it. "We do believe, but believing leads to works." These works don't maintain salvation but are a necessary outflow of being born-again, is what I gather from our discussions. They too believe that we are saved by grace through faith. However, there is a dividing line, a chasm between the grace community and those defined as Legalist. Sanctification. Not only that, but how that sanctification occurs.
You see, we are saved unto good works. This is true. However, though the works are an outflow of the born-again Christian they by no means save. The legalistic person will tell you, "Though they don't save, they must occur." The necessity for them, then negates grace. However, they will disagree emphatically stating that they are a necessary outflow of the born-again Christian, therefore for one to not have the works puts their conversion into question. "Are they a true Christian?" They then become what is known as "fruit inspectors" coming from the verse that says that we will know them by their fruits. The problem then arises, we have those purporting grace and those expressing the necessity of works or following commandments. The argument is from the perspective of questioning the sincerity of the conversion, because they lack good works, or don't follow Jesus' commands. It becomes a faith plus "something" doctrine, but they (the legalist) will argue that it doesn't become that. They will say a true faith will lead to these things(works/commandment following). The grace person will agree that a true faith does lead to these "things" but these things are not necessary for salvation.
This is where the divide happens. The grace community will tell you to not confuse the root of salvation with the fruit. We are saved by grace through faith and then sanctified in our daily walk. Notice we start from salvation, it is in our possession. Like the verse that says to work out your salvation, its yours. It doesn't say work to, but out. The sanctification doesn't save you, you are just as much saved right this second than you are years from now. It is simply faith in Jesus Christ.
The Legalistic community seems to put so much emphasis on the process of sanctification and the fruit of conversion. So much so that it takes away from the root, so as to combine the two. "You cannot have one without the other." I guess I shouldn't point them to the thief on the cross, or I might just burst their bubble. They agree righteousness is of faith, but they emphasize so strongly the fruit or result of that belief/faith. What happens to a believer (born-again) and his corresponding actions that happen as a result of that belief (obedience).
The grace community will tell you that, yes obedience is important. They will argue on what we are to be obedient to, however. It isn't the Law, we aren't under it. We are under the Law of Liberty. Our obedience is rather based upon an open and real relationship with the living God, and the Holy Spirit's leading. There is no laundry list, rules and regulations, but rather we are dead to sin and alive unto God. We don't need to obey commandments from the Law in order to walk in righteousness, rather we walk from who we are in Christ. The righteousness of God, in Jesus Christ. "Awake to righteousness and sin not." We renew our minds to who we are in Jesus Christ and who He is to us. We continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.
The legalistic community, however, will uphold the Law (attempt to). They "observe", not "obey", the Law for sanctification. They, supposedly, look at it spiritually and not carnally. They will tell you that we are to obey all of Jesus' commandments, and His commandments are not the Law (though he was preaching to people under the Law). They believe every word of Jesus is for them, and they must obey it or else. A true Christian, to them, obeys all of Jesus' commandments (except plucking out their eyes, understandably). They believe sanctification is a necessary outflow of belief in Jesus, and therefore as a result is a requisite to salvation. Not that it earns or maintains salvation, but is a necessary result. Basically, we end up back to the No True Scotsman fallacy, and they would question the person's conversion if they were not following through with these results (of obedience).
Notice the two different views on how one is sanctified. One is through a renewing of our minds to who we are in Jesus, and the other is a combination of mind renewal but also obedience to the Law (or Jesus' commandments, not to be confused with the Law you're welcome KennethC). One is simply a result of coming to an awareness of who you are in Jesus Christ (righteous, walk it out) and the other is a matter of walking out who you are supposed to be, letting your actions define you. Where as the prior allows your awareness of who you are in Jesus to define you and then you walk out who you are as a result.
The issue here however is that if you go with the renewing of your mind belief, then the legalistic community then become fruit inspectors. Fruit takes time to bear, mind you, and so renewing our minds can take a period of time. Therefore the result may not be as fast, but when it happens, its sweet and ripe. It is not an exterior performance, but an awakening to righteousness. On the other hand, we can attempt to obey Jesus' commands, we can attempt to be obedient to the Law, but these are all but exterior changes, not interior. They are not a lasting fruit to a changed life, but an outward show of self-righteousness. In actuality, they do not sanctify though when obeying them it may look as if you have been (sanctified), for only but a moment until you fail (again and again).
So you see, the failure of Legalism lies in the ignorance of how one is sanctified. So too is a failure is the emphasis of fruit inspection, the determining of true Christians. So much emphasis is given to the results that follow belief that belief is no longer the determining factor for salvation but whether they are indeed saved (as a result of their actions). You see, the necessity for sanctification nullifies grace. We don't need to be sanctified in order to be saved, but it is a result of salvation. A true believer will (if given the opportunity) be sanctified. You are just as much saved the moment you believe in Jesus, as you are twenty, thirty, or fifty years from now having gone through sanctification. Sanctification doesn't save you, Jesus does. To argue otherwise, even considering sanctification a necessary result of conversion, is to make salvation dependent on something other than Jesus, to nullify that we are saved by grace through faith.
You see, we are saved unto good works. This is true. However, though the works are an outflow of the born-again Christian they by no means save. The legalistic person will tell you, "Though they don't save, they must occur." The necessity for them, then negates grace. However, they will disagree emphatically stating that they are a necessary outflow of the born-again Christian, therefore for one to not have the works puts their conversion into question. "Are they a true Christian?" They then become what is known as "fruit inspectors" coming from the verse that says that we will know them by their fruits. The problem then arises, we have those purporting grace and those expressing the necessity of works or following commandments. The argument is from the perspective of questioning the sincerity of the conversion, because they lack good works, or don't follow Jesus' commands. It becomes a faith plus "something" doctrine, but they (the legalist) will argue that it doesn't become that. They will say a true faith will lead to these things(works/commandment following). The grace person will agree that a true faith does lead to these "things" but these things are not necessary for salvation.
This is where the divide happens. The grace community will tell you to not confuse the root of salvation with the fruit. We are saved by grace through faith and then sanctified in our daily walk. Notice we start from salvation, it is in our possession. Like the verse that says to work out your salvation, its yours. It doesn't say work to, but out. The sanctification doesn't save you, you are just as much saved right this second than you are years from now. It is simply faith in Jesus Christ.
The Legalistic community seems to put so much emphasis on the process of sanctification and the fruit of conversion. So much so that it takes away from the root, so as to combine the two. "You cannot have one without the other." I guess I shouldn't point them to the thief on the cross, or I might just burst their bubble. They agree righteousness is of faith, but they emphasize so strongly the fruit or result of that belief/faith. What happens to a believer (born-again) and his corresponding actions that happen as a result of that belief (obedience).
The grace community will tell you that, yes obedience is important. They will argue on what we are to be obedient to, however. It isn't the Law, we aren't under it. We are under the Law of Liberty. Our obedience is rather based upon an open and real relationship with the living God, and the Holy Spirit's leading. There is no laundry list, rules and regulations, but rather we are dead to sin and alive unto God. We don't need to obey commandments from the Law in order to walk in righteousness, rather we walk from who we are in Christ. The righteousness of God, in Jesus Christ. "Awake to righteousness and sin not." We renew our minds to who we are in Jesus Christ and who He is to us. We continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.
The legalistic community, however, will uphold the Law (attempt to). They "observe", not "obey", the Law for sanctification. They, supposedly, look at it spiritually and not carnally. They will tell you that we are to obey all of Jesus' commandments, and His commandments are not the Law (though he was preaching to people under the Law). They believe every word of Jesus is for them, and they must obey it or else. A true Christian, to them, obeys all of Jesus' commandments (except plucking out their eyes, understandably). They believe sanctification is a necessary outflow of belief in Jesus, and therefore as a result is a requisite to salvation. Not that it earns or maintains salvation, but is a necessary result. Basically, we end up back to the No True Scotsman fallacy, and they would question the person's conversion if they were not following through with these results (of obedience).
Notice the two different views on how one is sanctified. One is through a renewing of our minds to who we are in Jesus, and the other is a combination of mind renewal but also obedience to the Law (or Jesus' commandments, not to be confused with the Law you're welcome KennethC). One is simply a result of coming to an awareness of who you are in Jesus Christ (righteous, walk it out) and the other is a matter of walking out who you are supposed to be, letting your actions define you. Where as the prior allows your awareness of who you are in Jesus to define you and then you walk out who you are as a result.
The issue here however is that if you go with the renewing of your mind belief, then the legalistic community then become fruit inspectors. Fruit takes time to bear, mind you, and so renewing our minds can take a period of time. Therefore the result may not be as fast, but when it happens, its sweet and ripe. It is not an exterior performance, but an awakening to righteousness. On the other hand, we can attempt to obey Jesus' commands, we can attempt to be obedient to the Law, but these are all but exterior changes, not interior. They are not a lasting fruit to a changed life, but an outward show of self-righteousness. In actuality, they do not sanctify though when obeying them it may look as if you have been (sanctified), for only but a moment until you fail (again and again).
So you see, the failure of Legalism lies in the ignorance of how one is sanctified. So too is a failure is the emphasis of fruit inspection, the determining of true Christians. So much emphasis is given to the results that follow belief that belief is no longer the determining factor for salvation but whether they are indeed saved (as a result of their actions). You see, the necessity for sanctification nullifies grace. We don't need to be sanctified in order to be saved, but it is a result of salvation. A true believer will (if given the opportunity) be sanctified. You are just as much saved the moment you believe in Jesus, as you are twenty, thirty, or fifty years from now having gone through sanctification. Sanctification doesn't save you, Jesus does. To argue otherwise, even considering sanctification a necessary result of conversion, is to make salvation dependent on something other than Jesus, to nullify that we are saved by grace through faith.
