"Everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25). We are not free to do what we want, but what we ought!
A word to the wise is sufficient from Romans 14:1-5 as follows: "Accept one who is weak in the faith, but don't argue about doubtful issues. One person believes he may eat anything, but one who is weak in the faith eats only vegetables. One who eats must not look down on one who does not eat, and one who does not eat must not criticize one who does, because God has accepted him. Who are you to criticize another person's household slave? Before his own Lord, he stands or falls. And he will stand. For the Lord is able to make him stand... Each one must be fully convinced in his own mind" (HCSB).
My goal is to refute those who have become a "law unto themselves." I want to emphasize that the unbeliever knows no law in effect, however, the believer needs no law in effect--a paradox.
We should never label our brothers, but for the sake of argument, let's analyze the issue. Antinomianism refers to "anti-lawism," or being against law. It is sometimes called libertinism, hedonism, or living by the philosophy that says, "Freed from the law, Oh blessed condition, now I can sin all I want and still have remission." It refers to moral liberty run amuck or moral laxity to the extreme. We don't have the right to do as we want as believers and we are not a law unto ourselves--the Bible doesn't sanction a license to sin. We never have the right to do what is wrong, and we believe in absolute right and wrong, defined by the Word of God, not our conscience--we are not lawless! Certain of the more than 600 laws are now obsolete and don't matter to Christians, such as tithing, cutting our sideburns, mixing fabrics, or charging interest, but if it is serious it is reinstated in the New Testament in some manner. Recall that Paul said love is the fulfillment of the Law. We don't have to become Old Testament scholars to be good Christians--you can never go wrong by placing emphasis on the New Testament.
When we strive to obey the Law, we have "fallen from grace." We don't have to become somewhat Jewish to become a Christian. Neither justification nor sanctification is through the Law; instead, we are subject to the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ (Rom. 8:1-2). The Pharisees were guilty of obeying the letter of the Law, and not the spirit of the Law--"As many as are led by the Spirit are not under the Law [how clear can the Bible be?]," says Gal. 5:18. The difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is that the former needs no law, and the latter knows no law. Yes, all the Law can be summed up in loving your neighbor as yourself (Gal. 5:14).
There is a question of definition and morality. Some say are obliged to obey the moral law (in fact we are not "lawless", but have an inner law given by God), as opposed to the ceremonial or governmental codes. There are many moral precepts laid down in the Law that are relevant and are merely addendum's to the Decalogue and are spelled out to a dense nation that didn't know right and wrong. There are plenty of sins to worry about already, that we don't have to find some obscure one to preach about--we should always keep the main thing the main thing and preach salvation and deliverance from the Law.
I have heard it said that if we are under the Ten Commandments (except for the Sabbath observance, which is not repeated in the New Testament). and this has not been rescinded. There are plenty of sins mentioned in the New Testament (see Romans 1 Mark 7, or Gal 5:20-21), that we don't need a longer "to-do list" or "not-to-do-list," as it were (Christianity isn't a rulebook if you will).
It is a sound interpretation of Scripture that the New Testament trumps the Old and we should interpret each in light of the other. The fault of legalists is that they see "sins" and not "sin," or the root problem. The Pharisees strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel! They neglected the important areas of love, justice, and mercy while being overly legalistic and demanding about the Sabbath, making it a burden to dread, not a joy.
Remember, Jesus said, "My yoke is easy and my burden is light." The early church (referring to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15) did not desire to burden the early church with a yoke their fathers couldn't bear and did not require them to follow the Law of Moses. Christianity is a new faith and the fulfillment of, and not an extension or continuation of Judaism, which the early church struggled about. Judaizers were an early heresy and Hebrews was written to combat this. Soli Deo Gloria!
A word to the wise is sufficient from Romans 14:1-5 as follows: "Accept one who is weak in the faith, but don't argue about doubtful issues. One person believes he may eat anything, but one who is weak in the faith eats only vegetables. One who eats must not look down on one who does not eat, and one who does not eat must not criticize one who does, because God has accepted him. Who are you to criticize another person's household slave? Before his own Lord, he stands or falls. And he will stand. For the Lord is able to make him stand... Each one must be fully convinced in his own mind" (HCSB).
My goal is to refute those who have become a "law unto themselves." I want to emphasize that the unbeliever knows no law in effect, however, the believer needs no law in effect--a paradox.
We should never label our brothers, but for the sake of argument, let's analyze the issue. Antinomianism refers to "anti-lawism," or being against law. It is sometimes called libertinism, hedonism, or living by the philosophy that says, "Freed from the law, Oh blessed condition, now I can sin all I want and still have remission." It refers to moral liberty run amuck or moral laxity to the extreme. We don't have the right to do as we want as believers and we are not a law unto ourselves--the Bible doesn't sanction a license to sin. We never have the right to do what is wrong, and we believe in absolute right and wrong, defined by the Word of God, not our conscience--we are not lawless! Certain of the more than 600 laws are now obsolete and don't matter to Christians, such as tithing, cutting our sideburns, mixing fabrics, or charging interest, but if it is serious it is reinstated in the New Testament in some manner. Recall that Paul said love is the fulfillment of the Law. We don't have to become Old Testament scholars to be good Christians--you can never go wrong by placing emphasis on the New Testament.
When we strive to obey the Law, we have "fallen from grace." We don't have to become somewhat Jewish to become a Christian. Neither justification nor sanctification is through the Law; instead, we are subject to the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ (Rom. 8:1-2). The Pharisees were guilty of obeying the letter of the Law, and not the spirit of the Law--"As many as are led by the Spirit are not under the Law [how clear can the Bible be?]," says Gal. 5:18. The difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is that the former needs no law, and the latter knows no law. Yes, all the Law can be summed up in loving your neighbor as yourself (Gal. 5:14).
There is a question of definition and morality. Some say are obliged to obey the moral law (in fact we are not "lawless", but have an inner law given by God), as opposed to the ceremonial or governmental codes. There are many moral precepts laid down in the Law that are relevant and are merely addendum's to the Decalogue and are spelled out to a dense nation that didn't know right and wrong. There are plenty of sins to worry about already, that we don't have to find some obscure one to preach about--we should always keep the main thing the main thing and preach salvation and deliverance from the Law.
I have heard it said that if we are under the Ten Commandments (except for the Sabbath observance, which is not repeated in the New Testament). and this has not been rescinded. There are plenty of sins mentioned in the New Testament (see Romans 1 Mark 7, or Gal 5:20-21), that we don't need a longer "to-do list" or "not-to-do-list," as it were (Christianity isn't a rulebook if you will).
It is a sound interpretation of Scripture that the New Testament trumps the Old and we should interpret each in light of the other. The fault of legalists is that they see "sins" and not "sin," or the root problem. The Pharisees strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel! They neglected the important areas of love, justice, and mercy while being overly legalistic and demanding about the Sabbath, making it a burden to dread, not a joy.
Remember, Jesus said, "My yoke is easy and my burden is light." The early church (referring to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15) did not desire to burden the early church with a yoke their fathers couldn't bear and did not require them to follow the Law of Moses. Christianity is a new faith and the fulfillment of, and not an extension or continuation of Judaism, which the early church struggled about. Judaizers were an early heresy and Hebrews was written to combat this. Soli Deo Gloria!
Note that there are many gray or questionable areas that we should refrain from judging in: "Judge nothing before the time." Withholding our objection is a sign of grace.
ReplyDelete