I was Web searching "legalism" and came across a conversation between Howard Hendricks and Chuck Swindoll in which Rev. Swindoll defined the problem with legalism like this:
"When we get into areas that are not set forth in Scripture, either in precept or even in principle. These may be such things as length of hair, tattoos and other body piercings, skirts or pants for women, makeup or no makeup. Those are not scriptural issues. Sometimes these issues are cultural, and you do have to address them when you are in that particular culture. But I think legalism begins when you do or refrain from doing what I want you to do or not do because it’s on my list and it’s something that I am uncomfortable with."
Then he gives some advice we all should take seriously:
"The problem with legalists is that not enough people have confronted them and told them to get lost. Those are strong words, but I don’t mess with legalism anymore. I’m 72 years old; what have I got to lose? Seriously, I used to kowtow to legalists, but they’re dangerous. They are grace-killers. They’ll drive off every new Christian you bring to church. They are enemies of the faith. Other than that, I don’t have any opinion! So, if I am trying to force my personal list of no-no’s on you and make you feel guilty if you don’t join me, then I’m out of line and I need to be told that."
You can read the entire interview on Ed Stetzer's blog here.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
‘Why are so many discerning people so mean?’
I had Tim Challies pegged as one of those mean-spirited, legalistic pseudo-Christians.
I may have been wrong, if what he told Justin Taylor is any indication.
Read more here.
I may have been wrong, if what he told Justin Taylor is any indication.
Read more here.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Purveyors of Yeast
I never cease to be amazed at the arrogant self-righteousness and presumptuous attitude of the legalists with whom I used to associate.
An excellent example of a false prophet who presumes to enlighten the rest of us, while understanding nothing himself, is the proprietor of alittleleaven.com. This fellow is so full of ... um, "understanding" that he cannot resist sharing it with us poor, darkened souls.
Catch, for starters, his rant about Mark Kelly, who has posted a very thought-provoking online book about the doctrines of eternal security and apostasy. He shows how both are based on Bible teachings and that the biblical teaching on each position is different from the common misunderstandings called "once saved, always saved" and "losing your salvation." He makes an excellent case that a person does not have to—indeed must not—choose between the teachings. Sanctification is as much a part of salvation as regeneration, and the consequences of abandoning the process of sanctification are serious indeed.
The luminaries at alittleleaven.com and ChristianResearchNutwork, however, prefer jumping to conclusions to actually reading the entire series of posts. They rant at Kelly for what one claims is "the very real contradiction that exists between the Reformed doctrine of Eternal Security and the biblical warnings regarding apostasy and its consequences." No matter that he clearly shows there is no contradiction, once a person understands what the Bible actually teaches on both subjects.
This guy wants to have his unleavened bread and eat it too. On the one hand, he criticizes Kelly for not believing in eternal security, then he minimizes that doctrine as merely a "Reformed" position, contrasted with the "biblical" teaching of apostasy. He tries to stir up the "once saved, always saved" crowd against Kelly, while all the time he does not believe in eternal security himself! The other pharisee presents himself as a Southern Baptist pastor; his accomplice's teaching appears to be closer to that of the Church of Christ.
And he understands so little that he actually chose the metaphor of leaven for his site's name—apparently clueless about the irony.
Quoting from Kelly's post on The apostasy of legalism:
"The most insidious legalism presents itself as a defender of orthodox doctrine. After all, the Church has always had to oppose false teachers who threatened to corrupt the Faith. What could be more honorable than identifying heresy to protect the faithful? As Paul reminded the Corinthians, “A little bit of yeast makes the whole batch of dough rise.” (1 Corinthians 5:6 TEV)
"When Jesus used the metaphor of yeast, he was warning people about the legalistic teachings of the Pharisees. (Matthew 16:6) And while Paul’s warning to the Corinthians about yeast related to immoral living, he used exactly the same words to warn the Galatians about the danger of legalism. (Galatians 5:9)
"It’s a subtle deception indeed that sneaks yeast into the dough while warning about the danger of yeast."
The Purveyor of Yeast rants:
"Mark Kelly’s two posts contradicted each other so badly that we have no idea what he actually believes on the matter."
Presumably these powerhouse intellects would be incensed at an atheist who selects isolated passages from the Bible and uses them as "proof" of a contradiction, all the while ignoring a context that proves there is no contradiction. Somehow it is acceptable for them to pick and choose selections from a series of postings and throw them up as "proof" of Kelly's "confusion." What they have in fact done is demonstrate their own confusion—and lack of integrity.
A little advice for the Lovelorn: If you read a selection and don't understand, read the whole thing—and for Heaven's sake, don't broadcast your confusion on the Internet. Don't waste everyone's time by complaining about what someone else believes that you don't understand because you are too lazy or dishonest to read what he has written; take a position and explain what you think the truth is.
A man of godly courage meets untruth with truth, not with carping and criticism.
An excellent example of a false prophet who presumes to enlighten the rest of us, while understanding nothing himself, is the proprietor of alittleleaven.com. This fellow is so full of ... um, "understanding" that he cannot resist sharing it with us poor, darkened souls.
Catch, for starters, his rant about Mark Kelly, who has posted a very thought-provoking online book about the doctrines of eternal security and apostasy. He shows how both are based on Bible teachings and that the biblical teaching on each position is different from the common misunderstandings called "once saved, always saved" and "losing your salvation." He makes an excellent case that a person does not have to—indeed must not—choose between the teachings. Sanctification is as much a part of salvation as regeneration, and the consequences of abandoning the process of sanctification are serious indeed.
The luminaries at alittleleaven.com and ChristianResearchNutwork, however, prefer jumping to conclusions to actually reading the entire series of posts. They rant at Kelly for what one claims is "the very real contradiction that exists between the Reformed doctrine of Eternal Security and the biblical warnings regarding apostasy and its consequences." No matter that he clearly shows there is no contradiction, once a person understands what the Bible actually teaches on both subjects.
This guy wants to have his unleavened bread and eat it too. On the one hand, he criticizes Kelly for not believing in eternal security, then he minimizes that doctrine as merely a "Reformed" position, contrasted with the "biblical" teaching of apostasy. He tries to stir up the "once saved, always saved" crowd against Kelly, while all the time he does not believe in eternal security himself! The other pharisee presents himself as a Southern Baptist pastor; his accomplice's teaching appears to be closer to that of the Church of Christ.
And he understands so little that he actually chose the metaphor of leaven for his site's name—apparently clueless about the irony.
Quoting from Kelly's post on The apostasy of legalism:
"The most insidious legalism presents itself as a defender of orthodox doctrine. After all, the Church has always had to oppose false teachers who threatened to corrupt the Faith. What could be more honorable than identifying heresy to protect the faithful? As Paul reminded the Corinthians, “A little bit of yeast makes the whole batch of dough rise.” (1 Corinthians 5:6 TEV)
"When Jesus used the metaphor of yeast, he was warning people about the legalistic teachings of the Pharisees. (Matthew 16:6) And while Paul’s warning to the Corinthians about yeast related to immoral living, he used exactly the same words to warn the Galatians about the danger of legalism. (Galatians 5:9)
"It’s a subtle deception indeed that sneaks yeast into the dough while warning about the danger of yeast."
The Purveyor of Yeast rants:
"Mark Kelly’s two posts contradicted each other so badly that we have no idea what he actually believes on the matter."
Presumably these powerhouse intellects would be incensed at an atheist who selects isolated passages from the Bible and uses them as "proof" of a contradiction, all the while ignoring a context that proves there is no contradiction. Somehow it is acceptable for them to pick and choose selections from a series of postings and throw them up as "proof" of Kelly's "confusion." What they have in fact done is demonstrate their own confusion—and lack of integrity.
A little advice for the Lovelorn: If you read a selection and don't understand, read the whole thing—and for Heaven's sake, don't broadcast your confusion on the Internet. Don't waste everyone's time by complaining about what someone else believes that you don't understand because you are too lazy or dishonest to read what he has written; take a position and explain what you think the truth is.
A man of godly courage meets untruth with truth, not with carping and criticism.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Venom is produced by the Snake
Even if you are hard-hearted enough to think partial-birth abortion is not a crime against humanity, you still should have been appalled at the editorial cartoon produced by Tony Auth of the Philadelphia Inquirer to criticize the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision upholding the federal law that bans the procedure. Coming from an artist who would consider himself open-minded, tolerant, and enlightened, it was a grotesque example of bigotry against people of faith.
In fact, "grotesque anti-Catholic bigotry" is precisely what Chuck Colson and a raft of other prominent Christian leaders called Mr. Auth's work when they released a statement condemning the cartoon this past week.
In addition to Mr. Colson, the list of leaders signing the statement included prominent conservatives whose doctrine is beyond reproach: Gary Bauer of American Values, Frank Page of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, and Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America.
But if you think Mr. Auth's doodle represented bigotry, you should consider the venom spewing from Ken Silva at apprising.org. Legalists never miss an opportunity to miss the point, and Mr. Silva is the master. Rather than raise his voice in support of the ban on partial-birth abortion, instead of taking a stand against gross prejudice on the basis of religion, Mr. Silva chose to rant about how the statement supposedly endorsed "apostate Roman Catholicism." Somehow Mr. Silva thinks these leaders (including Mr. Silva's favorite whipping boy, Rick Warren) are endorsing the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church when they protest the prejudice of Mr. Auth's cartoon.
The "Not Grace" Party can always be counted on to change the subject and distort the truth if it serves to draw attention to their "look at me! look at me!" blog sites.
Nothing in the statement remotely endorses Roman Catholic doctrine. There are many points at which people like Mr. Colson and Mr. Warren would seriously disagree with RC teaching. But if you have to agree with everything one group believes and does before you defend them, Mr. Silva better hope a lynch mob doesn't show up on his doorstep. His neighbors will pull their blinds. One wonders what injustices he would allow, what courageous stands he would criticize, simply because it suits the self-serving agenda of his messiah complex.
It took me half a lifetime to realize this basic fact of nature: Venom is produced by the Snake, not the Lamb.
In fact, "grotesque anti-Catholic bigotry" is precisely what Chuck Colson and a raft of other prominent Christian leaders called Mr. Auth's work when they released a statement condemning the cartoon this past week.
In addition to Mr. Colson, the list of leaders signing the statement included prominent conservatives whose doctrine is beyond reproach: Gary Bauer of American Values, Frank Page of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, and Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America.
But if you think Mr. Auth's doodle represented bigotry, you should consider the venom spewing from Ken Silva at apprising.org. Legalists never miss an opportunity to miss the point, and Mr. Silva is the master. Rather than raise his voice in support of the ban on partial-birth abortion, instead of taking a stand against gross prejudice on the basis of religion, Mr. Silva chose to rant about how the statement supposedly endorsed "apostate Roman Catholicism." Somehow Mr. Silva thinks these leaders (including Mr. Silva's favorite whipping boy, Rick Warren) are endorsing the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church when they protest the prejudice of Mr. Auth's cartoon.
The "Not Grace" Party can always be counted on to change the subject and distort the truth if it serves to draw attention to their "look at me! look at me!" blog sites.
Nothing in the statement remotely endorses Roman Catholic doctrine. There are many points at which people like Mr. Colson and Mr. Warren would seriously disagree with RC teaching. But if you have to agree with everything one group believes and does before you defend them, Mr. Silva better hope a lynch mob doesn't show up on his doorstep. His neighbors will pull their blinds. One wonders what injustices he would allow, what courageous stands he would criticize, simply because it suits the self-serving agenda of his messiah complex.
It took me half a lifetime to realize this basic fact of nature: Venom is produced by the Snake, not the Lamb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)