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.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
profile
blog archive
-
▼
2008
(197)
-
▼
October
(21)
- Dr. Larry Moyer's FGA Presentation
- Review of Hodges' "Hydra"
- Why "Theological Legalism" in Free Grace?
- "Theological Legalism?"
- A Letter to my Pastor
- Dr. Charlie Bing's FGA Conference Presentation
- I Wear Freedom Boldly
- Conference's Confirmation
- Saved Through Faith?
- Radmacher Addresses Hodges, COSF*
- "The Evangelical Problem"
- Self-Control and Balance
- My Comment at Martuneac's "Salvation" Post
- Approval
- My Plans
- I Love Lou
- "Shuttle Diplomacy"
- Pit in the Stomach
- mm
- my own conference sound bytes
- NY NY personalities
-
▼
October
(21)
5 comments:
Dear readers,
I just read it.
It was awfully short. In fact he spent a long time in the beginning, just talking about the usual works-righteousness mistake of the "cults," before finally moving into the discussion of theological-righteousness. I wish he had talked about this longer, given examples of it for instance. Oh well.
Yep. The "hydra" is a good picture-parable for the phenomena. What can I say? I had a feeling I was going to like it.
Like I said, what good is it if I hang out with those who think like I do? I don't know. I'm sure some people might wonder why I prefer to take company with JP and Lou and Kev. Well, it's because otherwise I feel mentally and spiritually dead and sectarian.
-Michele
Hi Michele,
I read your article and I sense your openness and appreciate your transparency.
I will be thinking of how to respond to some of your questions, like the one concerning the preeminence of faith. At the moment I would simply say that the gospel defines who Christ is. Christ is the one who died for our sins, was buried, was raised on the third day, and appeared to His disciples (1 Cor. 15:3-5). The gospel defines the person of Christ in terms of His saving work. And that's the Christ the lost have to believe to be saved, the Christ of the gospel (Rom. 1:16; Eph. 1:13; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
JP
JP,
Thank you.
I would like to make another comment over the manifestation of theological legalism. It impresses me that most of the people who comprise free grace are a little naive, about how bad it really is out there. Today I was reading Lou's blog and there in that case is a little to lend to my claim: Calvinism is bigger than Lordship Theology. But there's more to this problem than just Calvinism....
- Scholasticism brought to us by modern Western culture has resulted in the tradition of demanding certification to establish usefulness. This is a cultural-overlay upon the Word of God.
- I imagine that ever since the individual priest-believer was theologically established with Luther, each man has become his own authority on the scriptures. Men are eager and willing to take up Paul's example of separation and admonition with no hesitancy. Yet, these same men sometimes have very little reliance and establishment in the Word of God (hence the wide variety in interpretations and denominations). This is an observation of culture. I'd rather see a man who was less interested in modeling Paul's confident doctrinal authority in the church, and more interested in studying and learning from one another.
- The popular prophecies and predictions and fear of anti-christs has also consumed and dominated our culture. Wherever we discover entrenched disagreement over truth, it quickly goes that the personal character of "those other guys" is assumed to therefore have to be, corrupt. But that is not what the bible says about how we should assess one another; we are sanctified by faith, not by agreeing theology.
I have a few more on the brain... I'll have to write them down later.
Thanks for letting me have a good starting swing,
Michele
We have sat in the living room and read aloud. Anonimo sends you a high-five.
Your words resonate (as does Rose's testimony she has been sharing)
So many good points, so much here for discussion. Thank you.
There truly is no such thing as neutrality is there ;)
Enjoying the fellowship of Him this evening
A
Hi Aletheia and Anonimo,
Thanks for the high-five! I started thinking of more issues and made a new post.
-Michele
Post a Comment