He means that people dismiss the whole of the law to ignore it to do whatever they want and claim "Jesus did away with the Law." What we call today "anarchist."
Are you one of those people who do that?
Honestly? A friend on here was confused on who to trust and who not to trust on here. I gave him three names of people he could trust. You're one. So, I honestly don't think you're that person. I do, however, think you haven't given enough time to adjust and digest what Just-Me is saying. He likes the OT. He likes the prophets. He likes the NT. He's often hard to understand.
But you know where I first got the impression that he was a legalist? Because he has anti-legalist groupies following him all the time constantly saying Just-Me is going back to the law to follow that, instead of Jesus. Want to hear something weird? When I was first on this site I believed them simply because that many people can't be wrong, right? And that many people kept saying "if you just listen long enough, you'll see."
Seemed like a reasonable request, doncha think?
So I did. And, when I didn't get what he meant, I asked. And, he really is from something I've never been a part of (in a way), so I often didn't understand. (And by "something I've never seen been a part of," I mean he's definitely not Wesleyan, nor Calvinist, nor Messianic, nor any of a number of denoms and nondenoms I've checked out in my Christian walk. He matches no discernible pattern I've ever run into in theology.) I can't put my finger on him to label him, except I still kept reading, and checking, and trying to understand.
Answers came slowly. Partly because he doesn't talk Christianese -- in any dialect and I get the lingo of a lot of different parts of the Christian Church. Partly because I'm not the brightest bulb in the box. But when you listen -- really really listen -- he's saying what I believe.
No we're not "under the law." We don't have to go buy a goat every time we sin. I didn't have to hide away whenever I had my period. We don't have to do the Passover anymore. But, dagnabit! That law is GOD'S WILL! That IS telling us what it is to be perfect -- to be like God. (Not to say we'll ever acheive it to be like gods. That's a different thing.) It does mean something! It still means something because it is the perfect show of what God is telling us is perfection! HOLY! God! God shows us who he is when he said not to cheat someone in a deal. (I like that one because that's what created the bakers dozen. Bakers didn't want to cheat their customers because of God's law, so, to make sure they didn't cheat them out of a dozen donuts by one donut, they gave 13. Worse that could happen is they screw up and only give a dozen. That is the heart of God in a simple idea from God's law.)
Can we do it? Well, since Paul didn't make it, and his mind was on God 24/7, I don't think any of us can. Paul said what I want to do what I don't do because my flesh is at war with the spirit. (Paraphrase.) That's the kicker! We're still stuck waging war, even after Jesus won the Law. He fulfilled it, didn't do away with it. He is God's perfection and through his sacrificial lamb (himself) and his scapegoat, (also himself), he fulfilled that which we cannot. He covered us like a mantle or like a good husband for his wife by fulfilling the Law, not pushing it aside.
Tell me that you can't get on board with that? Honestly, took me three months to figure out what Just-Me was saying, but he has confirmed to me that we are in agreement on this, so I'm not getting him wrong.
The real problem? All the voices shouting over him trying to say he's a legalist. If they'd stop going with the anti-legalists groupies and truly listen. Truly try and figure out what Just-Me is saying, well? Pretty much, they're going to agree in the long run. It's not simple (by a long shot lol), but it IS the gospel!
Now, instead of assuming all the anti-legalist groupies are right, all I ask is that you see him like this as you read what he is really saying. Instead of telling him he's wrong as the knee-jerk reaction, ask him! If you don't get it when he answers, tell him what you're still not getting.
Earlier, someone asked him a question and Just-Me answered with a verse -- didn't even show the verse, just told where it was. Back when I didn't get what he meant, I'd google the verse, (again, not the brightest bulb in the box so I have very little ability to memorize scripture, but google is my shortcut.) I'd read it, check out my question again to see if that answered it for me, and if it didn't, I did one of two things:
1. Give up for the day, because my brain was fried from trying to understand. (I'm doing the same thing with Old Hermit right now. lol) And then go back at it the next day.
2. If it wasn't because my brain was fried, I'd take a different route in asking. Many times you can tell me "the sky is blue," but I'm stuck remembering prisms, reflections, blahblahblah, so I can't get "the sky is blue." So, if I say what I'm thinking, and then ask for the person to say the same answer in another way, the person knows where I'm lost and does that for me. Just-Me has been doing that for me often.
What doesn't work is starting off with "you're wrong!" Seriously, dude? Want to tick me off royally, start out with "you're wrong." I may well be wrong, but attack right off the bat and you could be giving me directions to my own personal billion dollars and I'd never know it. You've shut me down, so I shut you down.
I haven't seen you interact with Just-Me until this thread, but the first thing you assumed was he's wrong and you told him that!
And, instead of asking him your questions, you're asking me. I see what he's saying. I see you telling him he's wrong about stuff he never said. (Even to me you went with "divide God's word rightly," as if that answered or said squat. Sure, divide God's word rightly, but before you go off blaming others for not doing that, how about making sure they AREN'T doing that? Have you noticed a distinct change between what you perceived from reality yet? So telling someone divide when you don't even know if they do yet, is the same thing as "you're wrong" before you KNOW if they are.)
How do you know he's wrong if you don't know what he believes? He said exactly what he said. This first question you're asking me is translate what he said. Well, I did. Now I'm handing this back to you to talk to him and really find out what he's saying, instead of having the groupies pointing to what he never said.
Fair enough? Took me three months. How long will it take you? lol
(And, yes. It probably seems like I haven't done that with quite a few people on this thread, but I have. Unless the first thing you say is truly pure garbage and there is no way of taking it any other way, I do wait before I give up on conversing with people. I've ignored three people today because I finally figured out there is no conversing. There is either "agree with me 100% of the time, or you're wrong." Same problem I have with given two choices only when there are a multitude of other choices.)
You? You're reasonable as long as you stop assuming the majority is right about someone.
Though, as far as I am able to tell with what just-me is willing to share, the crowd doesn't seem to be wrong. Maybe just-me is willing to prove the crowd wrong and answer the questions I posited to him? Who knows.