Liberty and Self Denial Walk Hand in Hand.
It’s hard to do the right thing. That is because my flesh is very much alive and well when, in fact, it should be dead. A dead thing does not move much, or rise up to proclaim its rights, or fight for itself. It is just still.
This is going to be a rambling post, I am afraid, but I am working through some thoughts and hope this all makes sense.
Liberty in Christ and Self Denial MUST go hand in hand. Self denial is like a giant rope that holds a happily bobbing boat from floating too far away from the solid footing of the dock.
One of my favorite hymns includes this verse:
Oh, to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be;
Let that grace now like a fetter
Bind my wandering heart to Thee:
But for some reason, today we don’t hear the terms grace and debtor talked about in mainstream Christianity. We have more of a “I’m saved by grace and now I can do what I want to do” mindset today. We hear a lot about liberty and how grace =liberty in Christ.
I appreciate the word grace and am thankful for God’s grace. But grace, and a knowledge of what was done for you should have a certain effect on you. It should drive you to obedience to the scripture. In Christ, you are free (liberty) from the bondage of your former sin. That is where the liberty comes in.
For some reason, this younger generation seems to think that if you are saved by grace then you really have no constraints. If they come across any restraint that is not spelled out in scripture, they cry “Legalism.” (Legalism is really the historical believing that in order to be right with God you need to do good works. Good works= God’s favor= Salvation. Legalism is a works-righteousness position. If you grew up as a Roman Catholic, like my mother did, you were taught that by doing works, or keeping certain laws, you may receive eternal life after a brief time in pergatory. Scripture teaches differently, and I have to believe the scripture. It says faith in Jesus Christ’s work on the cross plus nothing. Jesus Christ did it all. see here and here)
“Oh to grace how great a debtor, DAILY I’m constrained to be.” Because of grace, we are contrained to do all that the Lord commands and live by the spirit of the law, not just the letter. This does not mean that you must live as robots, all doing the same thing, wearing the same thing. It does not mean “uniformity.” It means that you don’t use your “liberty” to just live the way that you want to without regard for scripture or other people. If you read throught the entire Bible, you see that God does care about how we live, about how we regard His law and his precepts. In the OT, the Israealites had certain restraints, just so that the watching world would see that they were different and belonged to God.
I am afraid that in areas that are truly “indifferent” our kids have not been taught to think Biblically, because we don’t always think Biblically.
Liberty in Christ should always be balanced with denying the flesh. We are never to indulge the flesh, but are to “mortify” and “crucify” our carnal desires. So, it is NEVER okay to indulge in what would be sinful for you. And what may be an area of liberty for you and perfectly fine, might actually be an area of “self indulgence” or flesh feeding for me.
For instance, you go to a church where the pastor loves sports. All of the members then assume that since the pastor watches sports, that this is perfectly acceptable for all believers and can be done without any thought. A deacon’s wife is an avid antique collector, and another a “chocoholic”and therefore these must too be acceptable. And yet another deacon is an outdoorsman. All these things become “norms” in the church. No thought to these things is ever given.
A newcomber enters and unless otherwise taught, he believes that watching sports, collecting antiques, eating chocolate and outdoor pursuits can be done without thought and to his hearts content. These are all good and acceptable things.
So, soay Joe Shmoe turns to Christ, but before Christ he neglected his families needs by watching endless hours of sports on cable. He must be taught to listen to the prompting of the Holy Spirit and to abstain from the desire to watch too much cable agian, because for him it is not a matter of liberty…it would bring him back into a form of bondage and self indugence.
Say Suzy enters the church and is struggling because she is overweight. She cannot asssume that indulging in more chocolate would be okay, just becuase it is okay for the deacons wife. She needs to examine her own heart and understand the balance between what is lawful on one side and what would be self indulgent on the other side.
Does this make sense?
What is lawful must be balanced with self denial. Mkay?
In my experience, I hate to deny the flesh. I always want what I want, when I want it. I think this is human nature. As we pursue Christ, lets not look for the absolute minimum that we need to do. Let’s strive to do what is right and to find that out through careful study of the the Scripture. As John Owen said, “Be killing sin or it will be killing you.” All of this is a matter of the heart and a matter of our first love.
Your comment “For some reason, this younger generation seems to think that if you are saved by grace then you really have no constraints. If they come across any restraint that is not spelled out in scripture, they cry “Legalism.”” caught my eye, since I believe the modern Christian theological definition of legalism is illogically too broad and relative.
I got saved in late 1963. In early 1964, I enlisted for a four year hitch in the Army Security Agency. At Fort Devens, Massachusetts I finally got started studying the Bible in earnest and attended a Bible study group of soldiers that met at one of the chapels on post. All the folk in that Bible study group held to a definition of legalism and a legalist that only covered those who taught a false gospel of reliance on works to earn or help earn salvation. After my four year hitch, I started attending civilian churches and continued studying the Bible with other Christians in those churches. To my amazement I found that a high percentage of Christians were calling other Christians legalists if they were abstaining from some doubtful things that they did not abstain from. After a few years, it became obvious to me that the theological definitions of a legalist and legalism held by the majority of modern Christians, including fundamentalists and evangelicals, seemed to me to be very broad and relative because they include all the characteristics of and/or both the common characteristics of the Pharisees, of the false gospel teachers described in Galatians (Galatianists), of the false gospel teachers described in Colossians (Colossianists), of the weak conscience Christians described in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, and any characteristic in other Christians that to them had the appearance of strictness. In all my years of studying the Bible, I have never found the terms legalism and legalist or equivalent terms in the Bible. Those broad and relative theological definitions were very perplexing to me. Especially, since they included the characteristics of weak conscience Christians in the definitions when they are significantly different from the false gospel teaching Pharisees, Galatianists and Colossianists in the Bible? The Apostle Paul described the characteristics of weak conscience Christians in detail, but he never used an all-inclusive term like the modern imaginary jackelope type theological concepts of legalism and a legalist.
Here is a shortened list of some of the theological definitions for legalism and a legalist that I have encountered over the years since I got out of the Army.
1. “Legalism is the belief that a person must act a certain way so that God will bless, help, and prosper him. Legalism tells why one does or does not do something.” —— By Tod M. Kennedy. The full document can be found at http://associateship/ministry_files/The_Reading_Room/Outlines_1/Legalism.
2. “Legalism is a religious system that teaches that a person can do something to earn or merit salvation or blessing from God. — It is legalism.” —– The full document can be found at http://reapportionment/~would/ice/legalism.
3. “Legalism is the compelling of another believer to practice or not practice something not expressly commanded or forbidden under Grace.” —— By Pastor Pat Forrest. The full document can be found at http://companionway/~Forrest/legalism.
4. “Legalism is a philosophy of religious practice wherein faith is expressed by adherence to a command and obedience infrastructure. The place where legalism finds its most ubiquitous expression is in the evangelical, conservative, fundamentalist community.” —— The full document can be found at http://whatshername/counseling/journl2.ht.
5. “Legalism is the teaching that sinners are saved (justified, sanctified and accepted with God) upon the basis of their own works of legal obedience.” —— These quotes are from a document titled “Damnable Heresies” by Don Fortnight. The full document can be found at http://Graceland-for-today.com/42.ht.
6. “Legalism is that idea that one earns or merits salvation by their obedience.” —— This quote is from a document titled “Keeping The Commandments Of God” and can be found at http://chickenhearted/cont rib/exec_outlines/NT/NT_05.ht.
7. “Legalism is conforming to a code or system of deeds and observances in the energy of the flesh, hoping to gain the blessing and favor of God by such acts. Legalism invariably denies the principle of grace and exalts the pride of man. The book of Galatians was written as a ‘magna Carta’ against such practices”. ——- This definition was given by Charles R. Swindall in the year of 1967 in a document called “Friday Bible Class 759” while he was Pastor at the Waltham Evangelical Free Church at Waltham, Massachusetts.
8. “Legalism is the belief that keeping the law and its requirements is essential for salvation and Christian growth (Gal. 3:1-3).” —— By David L. Hocking over a radio broadcast program.
9. “Legalism is an attitude, a mentality based on pride. It is an obsessive conformity to an artificial standard for the purpose of exalting oneself. A legalist assumes the place of authority and pushes it to unwarranted extremes.” “— In so many words, legalism says, ‘I do this or I don’t do that, and therefore I am pleasing God.'” “Or ‘If only I could do this or not do that, I would be pleasing to God.'” “Or perhaps, ‘These things that I’m doing or not doing are the things I perform to win God’s favor.'” —— by (Charles R. Swindoll, “The Grace Awakening”, pages 81and 82, published in 1990).
10. “The great weapon of authoritarianism, secular or religious, is legalism: the manufacturing and manipulation of rules for the purpose of illegitimate control”.—— By Daniel Taylor, “The Myth of Certainty” (Waco, TX: Word, 1986), pages 34-36.
11. “Legalism may be defined as a fleshly attitude which conforms to a code for the purpose of exalting self. The code is whatever objective standard is applicable to the time; the motive is to exalt self and gain merit rather than to glorify God because of what He has done, and the power is the flesh, not the Holy Spirit” —– by (Charles Ryrie, “The Grace of God”, page 117).
12. “It cannot be emphasized too strongly that having to do something is not legalism, but the wrong attitude is —– Israelites had to bring their sacrifices, otherwise they would have suffered certain penalties. It was the attitude toward doing what they had to do that determined whether or not their action was legalistic —— Having to conform to a law is not of itself legalism” —– by (Charles Ryrie, “The Grace of God”, pages 117-118).
13. “The slide over two generations of time, from lordship (where biblical principles were understood and external standards were implemented) to legalism (where biblical principles were ignored and external standards were exalted) to libertinism (where biblical principles are forgotten and external standards are despised) has produced a scandalous variety of Christianity.” (page 114) —— “The effect was the development of a classical form of legalism (conformity to an outward code as a sign of spirituality), which corrupted true spirituality by shifting the focus from the internal to the external.” (pages 138-139) ——- By Douglas R. McLachlan, “Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism”, American Association of Christian Schools, 1993.
14. “Legalism an insistence upon the observation of human regulations, as if one’s fellowship with God were dependent upon that observation. In N. T. times, another form of legalism insisted upon the observation of O. T. rules and ceremony, which had been fulfilled in Christ and thus were no longer binding upon the Christian. The letter to the Galatians was written to attack legalism and assert Christian freedom.” —— From the glossary in “The Believers Study Bible” by Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991.
15. “The term legalism commonly denotes preoccupation with form at the expense of substance. While it is now used metaphorically in all areas of human life, it appears to have had a theological origin in the seventeenth century, when Edward Fisher used it to designate ‘one who bringeth the Law into the case of Justification’ (The Marrow of Modern Divinity, 1645). No equivalent term existed in the biblical languages. However, the idea is found in both Testaments.” —— From “Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology” Edited by Walter A. Elwell — Copyright © 1996 by Walter A. Elwell. Published by Baker Books, a division of Baker Book House Company, PO Box 6287, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516-6287.
Only two of the above definitions confined the definition to a type of false salvation plan, where works are involved in earning salvation. Note, that in the “Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology” they admit that the original concept was confined to a false method of salvation,“one who bringeth the Law into the case of Justification”. Many of the above definitions are very broad and relativity.
I believe that it is important that I now make some comments about the definitions that are found in some English dictionaries. Those definitions are as follows.
1. In the (Webster’s New Collegiate), (Webster’s Clear Type Dictionary) the definition is: Legalism (n) — strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral Code.
2. In the English dictionary (American Heritage Dictionary) the definition is: Legalism (n) — strict and literal adherence to the law.
3. In the (Oxford English Dictionary) definition is: Legalism (n) — The principles of those who hold a theological position of adhering to the Law as opposed to the Gospel; the doctrine of Justification by Works, or teaching which savours of that doctrine.
4. In the 1994 (The Merriam Webster Dictionary) the definitions are: Legalism (n) — 1) strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral Code. 2) a legal term.
5. In the 1972 (Second College Edition of Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American language) the definitions are: Legalism (n) — 1) strict, often too strict and literal, adherence to law or to a code. 2) Theol. The doctrine of salvation by good works.
6. In the 1828 Noah Webster’s First Edition of An American Dictionary Of The English Language the word “legalism” is not listed, but the words “legal” and “legality” are listed and do have theological definitions as follows:
Legal (adj)— 1) According to law; as a legal standard or test; a legal procedure. 2) Lawful; permitted by law; as a legal trade. Anything is legal which the laws do not forbid. 3) According to the law of works, as distinguished from free grace; or resting on works for salvation. Scott. Milton. 4) Pertaining to law; created by law.
Legality (n) — 1) Lawfulness; conformity to law. 2) In theology, a reliance on works for salvation.
7. In the 2001 (Webster’s New World College Dictionary) the definitions are as follows:
Legal (adj)— 1) of, created by, based upon, or authorized by law. 2) in conformity with the positive rules of law; permitted by law[a legal act]. 3) that can be enforced in a court of law [legal rights]. 4) of or applicable to lawyers [legal ethics]. 5) in terms of the law [a legal offense]. 6) Theology a) of the Mosaic law. b) of the doctrine of salvation by good works rather than free grace.
Legalism (n) — 1) strict, often to strict and literal, adherence to law or to a code. 2) Theology – the doctrine of salvation by good works. — legalist (n) – legalistic (adj) – legalistically (adv)
Legality (n) — 1) quality, condition, or instance of being legal or lawful 2) legal aspects.
In the past, many English dictionaries usually gave two or more definitions for the word legalism (See definitions 5, 6 and 7 above). Note, in the 1828 Noah Webster’s First Edition of An American Dictionary Of The English Language the word “legalism” is not listed, but the words “legal” and “legality” are listed. One definition is a non-theological definition that defines legalism as “strict, often too strict and literal, adherence to law or to a code.” Another is a theological definition that defines legalism as “the doctrine of salvation by good works – a reliance on works for salvation.” Note: this theological definition is defined as a type of false gospel plan of obtaining salvation. It has always intrigued me as why they give two definitions, one a theological definition and the other a non-theological definition. The first definition “strict, often too strict and literal, adherence to law or to a code”, being a non-theological definition, is a very interesting one, since it does not give any detailed explanation (interpretation) of what the phrase “strict, often too strict and literal, adherence” means. By not giving a detailed explanation of the phrase “strict, often too strict and literal, adherence”, they have left the determination of the exact meaning of that phrase up the whim of each individual person who is judging someone else as to whether or not that person is a legalist guilty of legalism. Because of this very broad and relative definition, some folk actually judge everyone else, except themselves, to be legalists since everyone else is stricter than themselves. This is often the case for many hardened criminals. Non-Christians, especially atheists, agnostics and irreligious people usually with much despite apply this first non-theological definition to true faithful Christians (even strong conscience Christians), which in their eyes are always strict and too strict compared to themselves, and call them legalists. Modern day Christians have followed their example and combined the same broad and relative idea of “strict and often too strict and literal, adherence” to the defining of the theological definitions of a legalist and legalism. Some of the modern authors of modern English dictionaries have been so heavily influenced by this wholesale redefinition of the theological definition of a legalist and legalism by modern Christians that they no longer have two definitions of legalism (that is, a theological and a non-theological), but have actually replaced the two definitions in their dictionaries with one very broad and relative definition of a legalist and legalism (See definitions 1 and 4). This combined definition usually is as follows: “strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral Code” (See definitions 1 and 4). Modern Christians lap up this definition from modern English dictionaries “like flies to cow manure”, and use it in a circular reasoning fashion to help justify their illogical, broad and relative theological definitions of a legalist and legalism, which they originally developed using illogical reasoning, of the variety that is used to develop the imaginary critter called a jackelope.
Non-Christians — especially atheists, agnostics and irreligious people, usually with much despite — apply the dictionary non-theological definition of a legalist and legalism to true faithful Christians because in their eyes true Christians are always strict and too strict compared to themselves, I believe that it may be wise for modern Christianity not have theological definitions for the terms “legalist and legalism”. I believe it may be wise to let the world have their dictionary list only their broad and relative definition of a legalist and legalism. Christians should face up to the fact that in the eyes of non-Christians we (true Christians) are strict and too strict for them. Let the world have the words legalist and legalism for their own special buzz-words to describe us (true Christians) with.
I believe the reason why so many Christians easily fall for illogically broad and relative theological definitions of a legalist and legalism is because they want to justify their despite for Christians that have weak consciences about doubtful-things that they don’t have a weak conscience about, and they want to justify their refusal to bear the burden of these weak conscience Christians.
I have also observed, what seems like about 80 to 90% of the time, when Christians used the terms legalist and legalism when referring to other Christians, they were actually referring to Christians that have weak consciences about something that they don’t have a weak conscience about. All this led me to conclude that the primary motive (reason) for modern Christians creating broad and relative theological definitions of legalism and a legalist was for the purpose of reclassifying weak conscience Christians into another critter to justify their despite for Christians that have weak consciences about doubtful-things that they don’t have a weak conscience about, and they want to justify their refusal to bear the burden of these weak conscience Christians.
David Geminden
Yes, I agree Kara. It is SO important to give people the benefit of the doubt in areas where we disagree, and to teach our kids that just because we cannot do something in good conscience, “as to the Lord,” does not mean that another believer cannot practice that very thing “As unto the Lord.”
Unfortuntely, just like every other realm of life, the loudest, pushiest people are usually also vocal in churches about why everyone should follow Christ in the manner that they do, and they sometimes leave others feeling as though nobody should ever take a stand on anything….even in matters of clear cut biblical mandates.
I think it gets tricky when you are teaching your kids, because they are still subject to obedience to parents and will someday may be called to submit to a husband, as well(girls). This is where “love” comes in. We lay aside our own desires, wants or even rights for the sake of loving another well.
We are at the age of transition, in our family, where we are teaching our older, college age daughter this very thing right now. I want her to follow God in the Spirit and in truth and in love from the heart…and to differentiate between devotion and “doing the right thing.” They are def. connected….but devotion comes first. I also fear for kids where devotion never comes at all!! They can look so good on the outside and they are excellent law keepers, but for what? . I always tell our teen girls class that the Muslim girls keep more rules and laws than we do and that it does not do them a bit of good….any more than doing all the right things does for Christian girls apart from a relationship with God.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Kara. You are always so insightful.
“Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it;
Prone to leave the God I love.
Here’s my heart, oh, take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above…”
Sarah–this is exellent and I agree. Love that John Owen quote at the end…read Overcoming Sin & Temptation last year…incredible!
I abosolutely agree with your examples at the end too…which is why our eyes need to be looking to Him for guidance and we need a heart willing to obey…eyes upward, thinking eternally, for His glory.
There is danger in not denying the flesh…should I keep on sinning…”May it never be!”
But I think the danger also lies in… not seeing the danger of outward actions without inward reality. As you shared above…thinking that works have any part in our salvation, rather than works flowing out of our relationship with Him.
I also think the danger lies in the temptation to blanket our convictions-of-conscience onto others…which is probably where a lot of the backlash comes from…to not trust each Christ-follower to the leading of the Holy Spirit when it comes to matters not clearly defined by God’s Word.
When uniformity becomes the goal (vs. a willingness to lay down all at the foot of Christ) then we can quickly become white-washed-tombs…
THAT scares me (especially for our children) almost as much because while the temporal consequences may not be a great as opening living for the flesh, the eternal consequences can be equally as terrifying.
I think in this post, you’ve done a really good job of pointing to the cross and then what our response should be.
Well said, Sarah!