The above is a quote from Pastor Eric “Gunny” Hartman prolific blogger (smiles) and pastor of Providence Church in Garland, Texas. I was listening to his sermon on Genesis 3 which is part of a series on sin. He was doing an exposition on verse 3 that I had never noticed before (most of you may have). In the verse Eve says “nor shall we touch it”. Gunny tells us to go back and see if this is what God really says. The answer is no. God didn’t say that at all. He goes on to say (in a non-flippant way) that she could have touched the fruit, “played hot potato with Adam” with the fruit and so on. He said all that to say this; this is the first sign of legalism. He then goes on to explain how many of us play the same game with God and how many denominations also play this game.
I will give you my own example from my life story. Most of my Christian experience was under extreme legalism. I was in a Seventh Day Adventist Oneness Pentecostal Church and you don’t see legalism quite like this. Head Coverings, no shorts, alcohol constituted stoning, no secular music, no activity after sundown Friday until sundown Saturday, no pork (the man trying to keep us down), and there were certain rules for intimacy between spouses if you know where I am going. These regulations had a huge (and adverse) impact on my walk with Christ. An impact that still haunts me to this day from time to time.
I will agree that liberty is dangerous ground and in the sermon Pastor Gunny says “it is much easier to leave by a list of rules” I second that motion, but to go into detail why is the key. Why is it easier. Well simply because we can check off the list all of our good deeds thus earning favor with Christ. The more I do the better the Christian I become right? Wrong. Paul says it like this “by works of the flesh shall no man be justified”. Any hint towards a works based salvation is like a man with a two ton weight tied to his ankle in quicksand. Whenever we think God loves me more or less based off of what we do, we at that point cease to have a Christocentric theology. Christ’s covenant with us is 100% unconditional. Even our faith is a gift folks (some may disagree at this point). Christ not only requires us to obey, He in turn gives us the ability to believe through regeneration and then the sends us the sanctifying power of the Spirit to continually grow in holiness. Now that is a God for you!
But in turn we seek to put limits on ourselves and others (where sin begins) in order to be Christian. This is what Pastor Gunny was talking about when he says “a fence around a tree”. The tree was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and God’s clear command was “don’t eat” not don’t touch. How often do we look down our noses a people who enjoy a liberty in Christ that we believe to be sin. A big area for me is movies. I still to this day can’t understand how people watch certain movies and I struggle with imposing requirements on people that the bible doesn’t clearly speak about. Another for me is music (unless it is purely profane) but some R&B can be a bit raunchy and I prefer not to listen to it. But what about our brothers and sisters? A huge one right now is politics. I have seen Republicans look at utter disgust with a Christian voting for Clinton or Obama and vice versa. These are all areas of liberty and though I have my thoughts on why you shouldn’t watch certain things, listen to certain things or vote for Leftys (LOL) they are my opinions and it would be extremely difficult for me to make a clear biblical case for these things without eisegeting the text.
Paul says something quite unusual as he is dealing with gnosticism in Colossae:
20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
Focus in on verse 23 he says these things “are of no value of stopping the indulgence of the flesh”. We are engaging in “self-made religion” once we flirt with legalism. I have a motto that I go by when dealing with people on issues that are not clearly stated in the bible it goes like this: If it is in the bible and you don’t obey it you are sinning; If it is on your conscience and you don’t obey it you are sinning; If it is not in the bible and not on your conscience then it is liberty. Now some things may be lawful but not beneficial but these things rest between the Holy Spirit and the individual and I can in no way infringe upon another’s conscience. Once I do infringe I am sinning. Here are a few more verses to meditate on. It is found in Romans 14:
14:1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
The key is found in verse 4. In today’s terms we have to say to each his own, unless scripture says otherwise. We have to avoid legalism as radically as we avoid sinning. Because legalism is sin. We are under the law of Christ and the Holy Spirit is the one who comes to “teach, guide and convict”. We are to teach the scriptures, and proclaim the Good News of Christ which involves discussing sins, but those sins have to be clearly identified by the scriptures lest we press upon someone’s conscience what God never intended for them to obey.
Adventists? Legalism?
You got to get some reality!!
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/01/cadillac-jack-movies-and-fiction.html
It seems like a thin line to walk between righteousness and legalism, but the big divide is over our focus. If we think that our doing good things is what is necessary for our salvation, then we are sorely mistaken. When we recognize our freedom in Christ because we are incapable of righteousness aside from His work on the cross, then we have no problem treating each other with grace and admonishing each other in love to greater purity and service.
Excellent Post, Brah…..the entire issue of legalism verses liscense, though there still seems to be the big issue of whatver leads to edification for all. Someone says nudity on T.V doesn’t affect them and that it’s not a sin, when the majority of men who see it o T.V fall into lust and yet that person tolerates it. Which one would be in sin moreso than the other and would it be legalism to say it’s wrong?
What would be your thoughts on I Corinthians 8 and I Corinthians 10 and how to practically apply them?
I Corinthians 8:9-13
9Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.
I Corinthians 10:
15I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say.
16Is not the (AA)cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the (AB)bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
17Since there is one bread, we (AC)who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.
18Look at the nation (AD)Israel; are not those who (AE)eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar?
19What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or (AF)that an idol is anything?
20No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they (AG)sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.
21(AH)You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and (AI)the table of demons.
22Or do we (AJ)provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not (AK)stronger than He, are we?
23(AL)All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable All things are lawful, but not all things (AM)edify.
24Let no one (AN)seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.
25(AO)Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake;
26(AP)FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.
27If (AQ)one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, (AR)eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake.
28But (AS)if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake;
29I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for (AT)why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience?
30If I partake with thankfulness, (AU)why am I slandered concerning that for which I (AV)give thanks?
31Whether, then, you eat or drink or (AW)whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
32(AX)Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to (AY)the church of God;
33just as I also (AZ)please all men in all things, (BA)not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, (BB)so that
Some things I remember learning:
As Joshua Harris said in the book “Sex isn’t the Problem (Lust Is), “To discern is to perceive the true nature of something. Because the popular media so often speak to us through our emotions, we must grow in discernment. Otherwise, when violence comes disguised as justice, when lust masquerades as romance, or when greed and selfishness pose as success, we’re likely to be deceived. Here are some biblical ways to help you discern whether a certain activity glorifies God.”
“Does it present a temptation to sin? (Rom. 13:14, 2 Tim. 2:22)
Is it beneficial? (1 Cor. 6:12a, 1 Cor. 10:23)
Is it enslaving? (1 Cor. 6:12b)
(Regarding the preceding two items, please note that when Paul writes in First Corinthians, “All things are lawful for me,” he is not establishing a divine mandate for a free-for-all of entertainment indulgence. He is, instead, quoting a false proverb then common among the Corinthians so that he might refute it.)
Does it honor and glorify God? (1 Cor. 10:31)
Does it promote the good of others? (1 Cor. 10:33)
Does it cause anyone to stumble? (1 Cor. 10:32)
Does it arise from a pure motive? (Jer. 17:9)
At one point, he shared a strory about John Wesely who was away at college. When ohn Wesley wrote to his mother, Susanna, asking for a list of sins he should avoid, she said this:
“Whatever weakens your reason, whatever impairs the tenderness of your conscience, whatever obscures your sense of God, whatever increases the authority of your body over your mind, whatever takes away from your relish for spiritual things, that to you is sin, no matter how innocent it is in itself.”
“Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21-22).
Hey Gabriel,
I think 1 Corinthians 8 is dealing with the weaker brother. Meaning this. If I invite you to my house and I know you believe Rated R movies are an abomination for sake of your conscience I am not to watch it or even debate with you over it (Romans 14).
In 1 Corinthians 10 it is more about ones own conscience coupled with the fact that if someone says “this is wicked come an enjoy” we are not to partake in it. For example we have the Uoiji board today. People will say hey I am going to call up my dead uncle. We know his dead uncle can’t answer him, but the very act is evil and is particpating in demonic activity. Thus we don’t do it. But just say a Hindu invites you to his house where he has offered up prayers to his god for the food. Would you eat it? To not offend them I think the answer is yes. What about if you are overseas and you have a chance to minister to a family who is Muslim and they offer thanks to their god (Allah) what are you to do? I think you eat. But someone correct me if I am wrong.
I haven’t personally listened to that sermon you mention above, but I have a strong hunch that your synopsis of it is more succinct and potent than the original.
Plus, I love the picture! Good thought-provoking stuff, as usual, brother.
LOL!!!
I appreciate the sermon and the fact you didn’t hit me with copywrite infrigement!
)
Lionel, this is great. We were just talking in home group last night about how easy legalism is, because there’s a rule for EVERYTHING!! You never have to use your mind to wrestle with complicated issues. It’s all just spelled out in black and white.
But much more often, the Christian life is about holding things in tension, because we are sinners who live in a fallen world but who are being pulled toward another World and learning to live the eternal kind of life. The example from last night, I think, was about the good things we tend to substitute for resting in the Lord. Rather than recognizing things like Christian fellowship, good books, relaxing music, and (dare I say it?) wine as gifts from the Lord to be used for our benefit and His glory, we use the gifts as an end in themselves, forgetting to see in them God’s outrageous grace to his beloved Children.
But the solution is NOT to draw a line around all those things and say, “Touch not,” even though that’s such an easy fix! The solution is to redirect our worship to the true, living God who gives us good gifts when we ask of Him, and who often uses ordinary means to refresh and soothe our hearts.
Thanks again for another post! Encouraging, as ever!
Hey, Brother Lionel…
On I Corinthians 10, you said this:
“Just say a Hindu invites you to his house where he has offered up prayers to his god for the food. Would you eat it? To not offend them I think the answer is yes. What about if you are overseas and you have a chance to minister to a family who is Muslim and they offer thanks to their god (Allah) what are you to do? I think you eat”
To a degree, I’d say the same too (Luke 10). But even if your’e a guest of an unbeliever and don’t wish to offend him, it is better to offend the unbeliever (according to Paul) who may be with you and not eat for the sake of the weaker Christian who may be with you & who would be offended to eat, since love for other believers is the strongest witness we have (John 13:34-35)….
Sometimes it’s hard knowing when to defer to the weaker believer….but Paul gives a simple rule of thumb in making the decision. We should be sensitive and gracious….for the goal isn’t HYPER-SENSITIVITY THAT WORRIES ABOUT WHAT OTHERS MIGHT POSSIBLY THINK, but genuine awareness of others/a willingness to limit what we do when there’s a real possibility of misunderstanding/offense. Some actions may not be wrong, but they may be in the best interests of others…..and even with Freedom in Christ, it’s can’t be done at the cost of hurting others.
I think Paul’s statement on Idols/Conscience has to do with how we should be sensitve to the MEANING OF OUR ACTIONS to new Christians who are sorting out how to renounce sinful ways from the past & live for Christ. That doesn’t mean we should make a career of being offended at people with over-sensitive consciencs, for believers musn’t project their standards on others.
Hey G,
I don’t think I said another believer was present in the invitation to the Hindu’s or Muslims house. I got what you are saying but that isn’t what I was conveying. Thanks for the wise observation. I especially like “our witness to the Christian is the greater good”. Very nice.
Hey L-Boogie (Laura)
I saw your post on Pulpit and I am very excited to see you posting there. I have to add you to the blogroll. I try to check a few of them per day (it can get taxing trying to stop by everybodys joint). But thanks for the kind words. You must thank Pastor Gunny for the word though. He is a silent monster. And an alright blogger
)
ll
Women sometimes get on a jealousy tip. With that, I mean they have issues with the shooping habits of other women.
I know it is crazy but it is real…
Now, I assert that the women that have the issues with how other people spend their money also have issues with coveting.
Thus, if someone has issues with the shopping habits of another, should the shopper cease to do so because someone gets offended, or should they proceed as planned because of the coveting?
I say get your shop on Righter. Let the Lord deal with their heart.
I say get your shop on Righter. Let the Lord deal with their heart.
LOL Righter/Lionel… “get your shop on.”
Seriously, I need to come here more often. I wish y’all could contribute to the discussion happening on my church’s message board about Calvin College and what went down with one of their profs — she was going to a mostly black but not reformed church, and asked for an exemption from the school’s policy about where their profs could be members, which they denied. Here’s the CT link: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/january/5.20.html
Here’s what one of the pastors said: “The libertarian in me wants to say that the institution has the right to demand whatever they want from their staff. If they required their staff to wear shoes that said “I’m a tool” on the toes, shouldn’t they have the right to do so? … At the same time, if libertarian law ruled, we’d still have businesses with whites only signs out front in the parts of the country that are okay with that. … The whole idea of the rule of law is that certain aspects of morality are objective. There are certain ideas which are dangerous or hurtful to society as a whole. The question in this case (which is not YET a legal case) becomes about whether or not Calvin’s desire for theological purity ends up being repressive to one who is outside the cultural walls of their church. That’s where the issue is gray. (But just the thought of the word purity in a discussion with so many racial overtones gives me the jibblies.) …”
Other folks are playing the racism card — which gives me the creeps! It’s like the trump card to which nobody can respond!!
OH, btw, I’m not tryin’ to hijack, dudes, I swear. If you’d rather email me about this feel free!!
I hate to say it Laura,
But when she took the job she knew the rules. This isn’t legalism it would be like a guy teaching Reformed Eschatology at Dallas TS. You already know what they stand for and to come in and say well I am going to try to change it by doing it another way is WRONG!!!!!!! If this becomes a legal case the woman loses all credibility. As a matter of fact I will post this to start the discussion. Thanks.
Brother Lionel,
Didn’t we discuss a situation like this recently—specifically, regarding Church Membership and how one couldn’t be a Continuist, for example, and join a church that held to a Cessationist position expecting to be able to preach openly open their beliefs in a leadership position if that was the church’s standard? This seems to be the same deal in another package regarding the issue with this professor, Brah.
Surprisingly, Of course, some would say that this is an issue of Christian Liberty being violated by the institution for not respecting the woman’s views which were non-essential (Romans 14)..
Wanted to add this links previously 4 others to check out, as I think it does a masterful job of addressing the issue with I Corinthians 8 &10.
On I Corinthians 8:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=795
On I Corinthians 10:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=799
On the issue of the previous scenario regarding going to a Hindu’s meal and eating meat placed before me that was dedicated to an idol, I had to reconsider some things after further study.
On I Corinthians 10:14-22, Paul applied the example of Israel’s idolatry to the problem in I Corinthians 8—–eating meat sacrificed to idols. There is the danger of going a step beyond just eating sacrificed meat to that of joining the pagans in the sacrifical feasts in their pagan temples. To do that would indeed be wrong and sinful since Paul illustrates this by showing participation in the Lord’s Supper to signify a believer is in COMMUNION—in a sharing relationship (koinonia)–with the Savior. So participation in idol feasts in pagan temples means sharing in pagan worship……..and one cannot get past how such participation is forbidden.
How Christians today must discern how the illustration applies to our own lives is still the issue, though.
In I Corinthians 10:18-20, Paul compared the OT sacrifices with pagan offerings. When the people of Israel sacrificed at the altar and ate part of the sacrifice (Lev 7:15, Lev 8:31, Deut 12:17-18), they participated in and became part of the sacrifical system/worship of God. Though Paul says he doesn’t mean idols are anything, he does make clear that when they sacrifice they do so with DEMONS.
There’s always a spiritual aspect and he doesn’t want the Corinthians to share in worship having to do with demons. As radical as it sounds, A CHRISTIAN CANNOT AT THE SAME TIME PARTICIPATE IN THE MEAL AT THE TABLE OF THE PAGAN GOD AND THE TABLE OF THE LORD, whether INTENTIONALITY or INNOCENTLY.,,,,so chilling to eat a meal offered up to BUDDAH at the Hindu’s house may not be an OPTION FOR TODAY.
If we share in Pagan idolatry, THE SCRIPTURE’S very clear we’ll arouse God’s jealously and incite Him to action in his HATRED FOR SIN/MIXED ALLEGIANCEs or opening the door for the appearance of such (Deut 32:21, Psalm 78:58, Romans 12:17)…….and IMHO, we see nowhere in the Scriptures where Paul ever did so when witnessing with individuals.
Going to a Hindu’s house for dinner may be one thing, but going to a FULL-OUT HINDU FESTIVAL LIKE Maha Shivaratri OR Guru Purnima AND DINING OUT/ ACTING LIKE IT’S ALL GOOD is a different story.
Regarding the issue of verses 25-31, though Paul said meat eaten at an idol feast associated with pagan worship/contaminated, meat eaten in the market places wasn’t an issue since it’d lost it’s RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE and is all right to eat……and this is where Paul teaches to eat meat without raising issues of conscience since meat/all things come from the Lord (I Corinthians 10:26, Psalm 24:!, Psalm 50:1, Psalm 89:11, I Timothy 4:1-5, etc).
MEAT sold at PUBLIX or PIGGLY-WIGGLY shouldn’t bother me if it was used previously at a HINDU FESTIVAL since I don’t know of it’s orgin and the purpose is simply MEAT BEING SOLD for GRUB.
But if a unbeliever—such as a Hindu–invites me to dinner at their house, Scripture seems to indicate Paul may’ve had in mind the believer giving the unbeliever a quiet/apprecitiative testimony…….and that’s only permissible if another believer DOESN’T POINT OUT MEAT WAS OFFERED TO AN IDOL. AT THAT POINT, be content with an empty stomach……because the freedom has condemned another man’s conscience despite any “rights’ One may have…..