In ENSIGN for February 1987,
J. JAMES ALBERT writes on the subject:
The Christian religion is the worship and service of Jesus Christ. It’s not Mary we worship, but her Son. We worship neither saints, angels, a law code, nor even God’s Spirit. It’s JESUS who is to be honored. The Bible is our guide.
In ENSIGN for February 1987,
J. JAMES ALBERT writes on the subject:
Wanting strongly to be like Jesus, when we feel we’ve finally made it, we’re apt to decide that only those who are exactly like us are like Him. Those who agree with US are right!
A prime example of legalists are the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. Jesus found them of all the Jews most opposed to the Way which He taught. With their traditions, they in fact transgressed the intent and spirit of the law God had given through Moses. Jesus told them about it.
He also found them hypocritical even in observing the commandments they themselves had made. Themselves imperfect, the Pharisees often accused the disciples of Jesus of doing wrong things when Jesus pointed out that the disciples were in fact NOT transgressing God’s law...
Paul, in his letters, spent much time dealing with the erroneous idea that by perfect obedience we can save ourselves. And, as Luke tells us in Acts 15, the early church finally had to have a definitive word from their accepted leaders as to whether or not Christians were under law.
In the Galatian letter, Paul describes the system of seeking salvation through perfect law-keeping as being a yoke of bondage (BAD news) which will separate its practitioners from Christ. Legalism is not a way of salvation, but a way instead that leads only to death.
The “law” of Christ leads to LIBERTY (freedom from law), for His “law” is love. Under law, guilty persons face
punishment. Since all are guilty, Paul advises that law always leads to death! The gospel is not a law code. Christ’s Way is a way of life, joy, and peace for unworthy sinners who trust in Jesus for salvation.
Rather than trusting in God, those who choose the way of death trust that their law code is perfect and complete, and that their obedience to what they say are commandments from God leads to justification.
Note that all who love Jesus are sure to “keep his commandments.” We will never deliberately do what we think Jesus wants us to NOT do. We will always do what we think Jesus wants us TO do. If our actions were as good as our intentions, we would all be perfect. Likely.
Before Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul was a legalist of the deepest dye. Turning to Christ caused Paul to turn against legalism...
Legalists assume that by their actions they can earn salvation. They can’t. No one can. The Bible makes it perfectly clear that the gospel of Christ is good news about what God HAS done (and IS doing) rather than it being news of what men must do for themselves.
A perfect man, Jesus of Nazareth could die for others. We who trust in Jesus for salvation will do many good deeds because He wants us to do them. But we’ll not think those deeds earn salvation for us!
Legalists always find fault with (they criticize) those who disagree with the laws they have created. Naturally they do. For they convince themselves that God really meant to speak to create law about the matter they think important. They imagine that what they read into the Bible was really put there by God. Most of us are apt to do this sometimes. But we never should do so.
The legalist is the (Romans 14) weak brother who judges those who know that there is no law against what the weak brother says and thinks is wrong. The weak brother demands that everyone accept his decision, for he is sure that he knows God’s will in the matter! Anyone who disagrees is thought to be a “brother-in-error,” disloyal to God, and weak in faith. Yet the dissenter didn’t lack faith in God. He just couldn’t agree with the weak brother’s judgment...
Contemporary legalists are convinced, for some reason, that the Sunday morning assemblies are the most important hour of the week. They gleefully “withdraw fellowship” and condemn anyone whose ideas about how to praise and please God in Christian assemblies differ from their own theories. Unlike Jesus, who said the sure mark of recognition would be whether one who said he was a brother loved his brothers, they identify brothers by agreement on doctrinal details. Those whose practice in Sunday morning “worship” is identical to theirs are THEIR brothers. How the brother lives and loves others seems to matter little!
Loyal legalists seek to domineer. Since they know they are entirely and always right, they feel they must demand that their ideas/interpretations/opinions become those of all. Any dissenter is doomed, for legalists know exactly what God teaches and requires. If persuasion doesn’t change a brother’s mind, then other means are appropriate, even means which most Christians would say are totally inappropriate for a Christian. Conformity is demanded, or the brother is no longer accepted as a brother. Legalists trust in law-keeping, find fault with all who dare to disagree with any conclusion they reach, and demand that all accept their judgments as final and correct in every religious question.
Christians cannot be legalists. The Way to unity in Christ is a way paved by love. It’s a way where brothers enjoy the company of brothers of every race and persuasion while all find peace by seeking and doing the will of the Lord Jesus.
ENSIGN, 2710 Day Rd, Huntsville AL 35801, was a monthly, edited by R. L. Kilpatrick.
--- And here’s an interesting letter about the attitude best described as LEGALISM.
(A reply to comments addressed to Cecil Hook by Brent -- Few groups are as good at practicing legalism as the U.S.-based “Churches of Christ” to which Cecil and Terry and I belong. I’m really in the Churches of Christ/Christian Churches group since I don’t believe God cares whether or not we use musical instruments in praising Him.)
Brent -- I do not know all of the persons or scenarios to which you refer as “bulldozing God’s word out of the way,” but I do know that many of the voices among Churches of Christ which are challenging the traditions that have often been referred to as “the old paths” are in fact much more diligent in trying to allow the Biblical text to speak.
Many of our “old paths” are not all that old -- 150, 100 years, or less -- and many of us are allowing God’s word to bulldoze tradition out of the way, something that I believe to be consistent with the teachings of Jesus (cf., e.g., Matt. 15:1ff.). What you seem not to realize is that most of us who no longer will allow tradition to pass uncontested as gospel -- who insist that “we are not under law but under grace” -- have done our time as die-hard legalists whose “narrow way” was actually our “narrow way of thinking” that the truth which sets men free is whatever our group believes and practices, and that the “pattern shown to thee on the mount” was a model for duplicating the New Testament church on earth (a model that requires us to carefully select some, but negate other, attributes of virtually every congregation described in Acts - Epistles.)
We believed it, defended it, preached it, and debated it -- until we found that we could not answer even some of the most basic questions of faith and doctrine by using that man-made, self-limiting, self-serving paradigm. I can assure you that the transition from legalism to liberty was not made without soul-searching AND Scripture-searching. It was no easy pilgrimage from earned-righteousness-by-obedience to imputed-righteousness-by-faith, but it was worth the trip in terms of greater understanding of the word of God and of less manipulation of the text for the sake of protecting one’s arguments and positions.
Despite the charges of the most ardent defenders of the “faith once for all delivered to the saints [in the 19th and 20th centuries]” that this undermines or negates obedience, to the contrary, it frees and impels us into greater service to God and a deeper commitment to honoring and being faithful to His word.
Brent, the mere quoting or citing of boatloads of scripture references or tossing about Biblical quotes is no evidence of soundness of doctrine. Nor does hard-line defense of our established status quo prove that one is biblically conservative. A Biblical conservative truly does what our slogan claims. He speaks where the Bible speaks, is silent where the Bible is silent.” Goebel Music’s Behold the Pattern (and other articles and books of a similar direction) is patently guilty of doing a great deal of speaking on matters which the Bible does not address (“is silent”), either explicitly or implicitly. At the same time, it avoids (or distorts) some rather clear teachings of Scripture (matters on which it “speaks” in abundance).
I guess all I wish to convey to you is that I know and understand exactly where you are at theologically, and I can hardly expect you to understand anything else. But I do want to encourage you to consider how consistent is your method of ascertaining truth by the way in which you deal with difficult questions. I found that, in order to reach many of my conclusions, I had to speak where the Bible was silent, to ignore some things on which the Bible spoke abundantly, and to skip over far too many questions that arose under that line of reasoning.
Ultimately, it is not by our wisdom or knowledge that we come to know God or his truth -- it is through his Holy Spirit, whose message is contained in the vessels of human language (words) but whose truth is deeper than the words can possibly convey.
One more thing: 2 Peter 1:3 has no reference to the Bible, as your quote contended. “All things that pertain to life and godliness,” Peter says, God has already (at the time of writing) given. 2nd Peter was not the last book of the New Testament to come about, so that the five writings of John (probably dated in the last two decades of the first century) and perhaps a couple other post-A.D. 70 books would not (by this definition) pertain to life and godliness. A perfect example of forcing a preconceived idea on the text.
Read it again to discover what things God ALREADY had given in reference to life and godliness. I remember using this verse in the Open Bible Study format of Ivan Stewart years ago, and a prospect with whom I was studying asked me how I knew this referred to the Bible. I blush with shame now to recall the verbal gymnastics and outright distortion which I used to “prove” my case. He did not become a Christian, at least not under my clever tutelage.
I’ll be praying for you. I know so many whose views were just like mine, and whose hearts I trust were basically sincere but who (like me) subscribe to and defend a position that frankly does not stand up under the pressure of scrutiny and under the weight of the biblical text itself. And God can work in hearts such as these, even though they may be zealously misdirected. Such seems to have been the case with the apostle Paul. The only hearts God may not work in to reveal truth are those who credit themselves with having already learned all the truth that really matters -- anything else to be learned is just icing on a cake that is already baked, cooled, and on the plate.
Blessings in Christ, Terry Danley
---------------------------------
From: Ray Downen
Stanley, It’s appropriate that each of us should realize that Jesus wants us who belong to Him to love ALL who belong to Him. I think you are right that in matters essential to the Christian faith, we must be of one mind (one spirit). In all things we must love one another, each regarding the other better than himself. You well say,
I’m sorry if I fail, or any brother in fact fails, to properly respect your right to not see things exactly as I (they) do. In our hearts we know you DO have the right to disagree. And we know that we ALL can learn and should do so. So please forgive us if we seem to think we know it all and seem to feel that anyone who disagrees is ignorant or else just misinformed. Try to love us anyway. Thanks!
I’m troubled by the wording you’ve chosen (quoted below) that the only ones saved will be in “the body known as the church of Christ.” If you mean the brotherhood which has pre-empted that name as their denominational identification, that’s bad. If you mean the church Jesus actually built, which includes all who are reborn and who are scattered abroad in hills and valleys we seldom or never traverse, then of course you’re right. Most Christians are NOT in our “brotherhood.” All Christians are in the REAL assembly which was founded and which belongs to the Christ. We don’t own the name, “Church of Christ.” I hope I’m just misunderstanding the implications of your statement, so that we both already see this matter exactly alike.
For no one is saved outside the church of God which is the Lord’s church and which is the body of Christ and will be the bride of Christ. Many are saved outside the “church of Christ” or “Church of Christ” which identifies itself as such here on earth.
In a real sense we are not saved by the church, or by our knowledge of the church. We’re saved by Jesus. We’re saved by a new birth of water and spirit. After we’re saved, the church can bless us and strengthen us. That’s why God planned and built it.
But in the episode of the conversion and baptism of the Ethiopian we surely can see that in God’s providence, the man was saved and “the church” had nothing to do with it, and Luke doesn’t mention that “the church” ever did have anything to do with it.
We infer that when the man got home he would tell others about Jesus, baptize them, and then they would meet together as the body of Christ. But nothing is said about the apostles sending an organizer there to “set the church in order.” Not then, and at no time. Also we note that It was many months after churches were begun by Paul that he instructed his follow-up crew to set apart in those young churches men to become their leaders.
Nowhere in the Bible is there record of any prescribed or required “order of worship” by Christians. We do infer from what is said about their meetings that they met to edify and encourage one another and to pray to and worship our God. But we have no scriptural warrant for insisting that another group do exactly the same things in the same way that WE choose to do them. And if we harmoniously decide to do next year something we didn’t do last year, or to omit something that was done, we surely have that right.
By which I mean -- if one congregation has the servers and leaders march in procession from the back to begin the service time, they have the right to do so. One church I attended for a time in Kansas City liked it that way. I felt no call to tell them they couldn’t do it that way and please God. They weren’t trying to please ME, and were trying to please God and conform to the expectations of the majority of their own congregation.
Some congregations pass the emblems, then partake together. They have the right to do it that way now, and later change and eat as the emblems are passed. Or vice versa. Some share one cup. We are not required to have individual cups. We’re not condemned if we do. In some congregations there is a dress code. All servers must wear a tie. Sometimes a suit coat. But the Bible doesn’t set up the code. Men do, and what men do can be redone or undone. And we’ve no proof that God will be displeased if we don’t follow any code set up by men.
Many Christians are serving God the best way they know, and are sincere in loving Jesus, yet they don’t know anything about Campbell or Lipscomb or Ketcherside or Hook. Or you or me. It’s Jesus who is their Lord. Many do NOT know some things we think are important to know about the church and about the Way of salvation. They can be saved without much that WE think is very important.
The requirement is first outlined in John 3:3-5, then clarified in Acts 2:38. What brings us INTO CHRIST is hearing the good news that we CAN be saved despite our sin, then choosing to turn away from sin in order to let Jesus be our Lord, and confessing this by tongue and by that action designed to show forth not just OUR death to sin but also HIS death and resurrection. We are not saved by the one who baptizes us, or by the words that person uses, or by the church which pays his salary and which accepts us into its fellowship.
We’re saved by Jesus. At the baptism of a penitent sinner who now believes that Jesus is the Christ, a new Christian is created. The Bible sets up no “pattern” of worship or dress or work by which we have the right to judge any brother or sister in Christ. If he in good conscience serves Christ in ways which we think are not appropriate, we can share our thought with him, but we dare not JUDGE him to not be a Christian if he disagrees with us.
I thought from your comments that possibly you were really thinking that folks had to be “of us” in order to be saved. If so, I have to disagree -- vigorously, as you noted! Paul makes a definite contrast between those who see we are saved by grace and those who, on the other hand, pay only lip service to grace while believing that we are saved by works. “Legalist” is what we call the extremists who demand obedience to a law code they create.
Legalists earn the right to their title by setting up unscriptural requirements and refusing fellowship to any who won’t accept their right to make laws in God’s name.
Cecil Hook was free in Christ. So am I. I hope you are as well. The worst enemies Paul faced in doing the work of the Lord were legalists. Those who may destroy the church which belongs to Jesus today are those who today earn the title of legalist. I personally know no legalists in the ranks of those who recognize that we ARE saved by grace. You say you do.
Perhaps we don’t really understand the term alike. I very much like what is said in my study #1 copied from the ENSIGN magazine of some years back, written by a California brother. I hope you’ve read that study or will do so. And I’ll appreciate any additional comments you feel led to share!
(This letter which follows is also Viewpoint Study #76, where the letter to which it responds -- from Stanley Adams, may be found.)
---------
To: “Stanley Adams”
Subject: Re: In ONE Spirit
Date sent: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:25:18
The Church of Christ here spoken of is that group of saints of God who prefer to use only the one name for their fellowship, and who generally feel it is improper to use musical instruments in church assemblies.
---------------------------------------