Many have claimed it is slander to say those who call people who believe in obedience and righteousness as legalists, do not themselves support obedience and righteousness.
The real question is, are we talking about the same thing? The answer is no because they reject the principles and morality we would want to obey and call righteousness.
So the question is obedience to what in their eyes?
Take the sermon on the mount. They say that is addressed to Jews and not christians.
The Lords prayer, old covenant. In fact everything before the cross is irrelevant.
Righteousness? Well nothing in the law, because that is just for Jews or to convict of failure.
Now there is much in the letters of the apostles but it does not relate to penal or civil govenance, rather personal attitudes and emotional responses. But everything that refers back to Jews or Jewish attitudes is also excluded. So you will hear the words context, but that just means ignore or apply this area to your life depending on the audience.
So though these people appear to have the same language as us, they actually approve of a different moral and relationship model.
It is why the language can be the same but the actual implications different.
Not surprisingly this is actually a different faith but with a similar language. Now they argue it is the true faith and what we have practised for 2000 years is actually false legalism and self justification.
Now they will strut and preen and say they are being loving to the weak believer and condemning the pharisee for their legalism and hypocracy. Now this appears on the surface a legitimate position until you realise it is they who continually confess about sin and failure, about being bound and never able to be free from issues. The best they do is repress ones conscience, say the Holy Spirit never convicts of sin, and say walking in the Spirit is the goal, but continually walk in the flesh which they feel guilty about.
The whole premise is you can never walk in fellowship before the Lord in purity and righteousness, even redeemed washed and purified. So though they claim they are freeing themselves from condemnation, they actually believe they deserve it.
Their response is the christian is called to be perfect which is impossible. The problem is "perfect" is in the eyes of the beholder. To say righteous, blameless, walking in love and the Holy Spirit, the apostles say this should be our position and should be our experience. If this is not possible, why did Jesus die on the cross, why are we called the body of Christ, holy, redeemed, a glory to the King of Kings.
Now I talk as I do, because I believe your heart can be cleaned, your emotions can respond on the inside the same as the outside, you can be really alive, rejoicing, knowing you are a child of heaven and Christ has done a new work in you.
They do not hold to this, though they talk of grace, it is grace to a flawed and failed people who actually stay like that except of occasional miraculous healings. Anything else is of the flesh.
The real question is, are we talking about the same thing? The answer is no because they reject the principles and morality we would want to obey and call righteousness.
So the question is obedience to what in their eyes?
Take the sermon on the mount. They say that is addressed to Jews and not christians.
The Lords prayer, old covenant. In fact everything before the cross is irrelevant.
Righteousness? Well nothing in the law, because that is just for Jews or to convict of failure.
Now there is much in the letters of the apostles but it does not relate to penal or civil govenance, rather personal attitudes and emotional responses. But everything that refers back to Jews or Jewish attitudes is also excluded. So you will hear the words context, but that just means ignore or apply this area to your life depending on the audience.
So though these people appear to have the same language as us, they actually approve of a different moral and relationship model.
It is why the language can be the same but the actual implications different.
Not surprisingly this is actually a different faith but with a similar language. Now they argue it is the true faith and what we have practised for 2000 years is actually false legalism and self justification.
Now they will strut and preen and say they are being loving to the weak believer and condemning the pharisee for their legalism and hypocracy. Now this appears on the surface a legitimate position until you realise it is they who continually confess about sin and failure, about being bound and never able to be free from issues. The best they do is repress ones conscience, say the Holy Spirit never convicts of sin, and say walking in the Spirit is the goal, but continually walk in the flesh which they feel guilty about.
The whole premise is you can never walk in fellowship before the Lord in purity and righteousness, even redeemed washed and purified. So though they claim they are freeing themselves from condemnation, they actually believe they deserve it.
Their response is the christian is called to be perfect which is impossible. The problem is "perfect" is in the eyes of the beholder. To say righteous, blameless, walking in love and the Holy Spirit, the apostles say this should be our position and should be our experience. If this is not possible, why did Jesus die on the cross, why are we called the body of Christ, holy, redeemed, a glory to the King of Kings.
Now I talk as I do, because I believe your heart can be cleaned, your emotions can respond on the inside the same as the outside, you can be really alive, rejoicing, knowing you are a child of heaven and Christ has done a new work in you.
They do not hold to this, though they talk of grace, it is grace to a flawed and failed people who actually stay like that except of occasional miraculous healings. Anything else is of the flesh.
Last edited:
