"Theological Legalism?"

I have the impression that the online climate is more capable of handling disagreement and opinions of a various sort, without communication shutting down as a result. So, let me finally take a crack, but just a small one.

There's a lot I don't know.

Here's what I do know:

"Theological legalism" is a uniquely evangelical phenomenon. This is simply because we are the only Christians who, by definition, believe that the bible is literal and true. In fact, the drive to preserve and defend the scriptural make-up of the gospel message, has caused legalism to manifest quite noticeably here in this free grace movement. But, I can tell you that any other band of evangelicals will have a much worse arrangement of theological chokings. It begins with creeds and gets more complicated from there; in fact, the entire body of apologetic work done for each class of non-believer, has replaced the gospel of salvation. Isn't that horrible? But it's true!

If the entire apologetic construction has truly replaced the gospel message, you might understand why I say, "I hate it" (see next paragraph). "Lordship Salvation" is but one tiny manifestation (and a less-gross one I might add) of the phenomena of evangelicals adding much, much more to the message of the gospel, and the combinations have as much variety as there are denominations. That's one of the reasons why I always said I felt like I didn't belong amongst my own infallible-scripture-believing kind. Though, it does make me an awesome tool for annihilating the error of any message I happen to come across: I point them all back to the cross, and then sometimes they're done with me.

I hate "theological legalism." I've called it the "legalism of belief," and it is one part of two in what I call "the evangelical problem." The evangelical problem is the infiltrating deception to believe in self-righteousness by both what the law can measure, and othertimes a belief in the self-righteousness by the theology an infallible bible provides. Evangelicals preach righteousness in union with Christ by faith, alone. When they cling to either theology for righteousness, or, law for righteousness, they have unconsciously contradicted their reason for which they needed Christ.

The fact that I hate anything is a big clue to me that perhaps I'm not balanced, though you may have noticed I keep the hate under regulation, y'all. I came from the out, in. I came from experiencing works-legalism, and then watching evangelistic-legalism, toward the freedom of faith alone in Christ alone by the power of the Word of God. And I am so happy to have free grace friends who are like me. But: if I am "escaping" that means I am still not "resting" and this can only be done by examining the Word and correcting the error that is inherent when I am hating anything.

As for the gospel according to Stegall/Rosker, and the gospel according to JP, I believe it will take me some time to review for myself what I see many people in these circles have been already working on for a couple of years or so. But at this time I will continue to consider myself "crossless" in the "content of saving faith." I am also more or less crossless in my understanding of the gospel, for now, as well. Here is the reason, and, I haven't seen anyone address this topic, yet: the pre-eminence of faith, over all other requirements. Has anyone addressed this point, yet? As long as no one can theologically conquer their "gospel" and "content" debate over the theology of faith's sufficiency, I too will not likely be moved too far from where I am at this time.

Again, I know I don't know anything. But the theology of faith's pre-eminence is the reason why I have fallen in love with evangelistically engaging the non-mainstream Christian movements ("cults"), and it is also the only reason why I ended up free grace in soteriology before I knew of them. So I owe all my accomplishment to the scriptures, and I can't move till someone can meet me there.

Thanks for letting me be transparent.

P.S. A week or so ago, Ben told me that I am most likely being foolish by using my term of "legalism of belief" as interchangeable with Zane Hodges' term of "theological legalism." He's right, I don't know for sure what Hodges defines it as. Hodges may mean something I don't intend. I've been avoiding reading anything by Hodges for all these months even though I have some of his books sitting on my shelf. Why? Because I just get this feeling that I am so Z.H.T.N.G. (Zane Hodges The Next Generation). I think I naturally am even if without expertise, an additional independent witness that this alarm is necessary. However, Ben's right. It is foolish to avoid awareness, just because of that.

So, I've decided to begin reading Hodges' "Theological Legalism." And then, I'll share my assessment.