58 Thesis

This was an article one of my professors wrote some years ago and I thought it was great. Wanted to share.

58 Theses

regarding Christian liberty and legalism

(remember: a thesis is not an article for a doctrinal confession, but rather a proposition for debate)

Dr. J. Hullinger

1. There is always somebody who is offended by anything we do.  There is a big difference between a weaker brother mentioned by Paul in Romans 14 and a prideful, ignorant, and spiritually bigoted person.  There are some Christians who refuse to grow, refuse to love, refuse to change, and are joined to their uninformed opinions.  Paul is not talking about these kinds of people here.  While we should be civil toward these kinds of people, we should not allow them to control our lives.
2. The weaker brother is a reference to a believer who is immature in the faith and whose conscience has not been strengthened yet by the truth. A “weak” brother is not weak because he is easily irritable, but because he has an uninformed conscience.  This weaker brother is to be lovingly guided into the truth.  As we minister to him, we should not flaunt a freedom we have, because at this stage of his Christian experience, that will bother him and retard his spiritual growth.
3. The two extremes: on one extreme you have those who have their own inspired list of what Christians should not do in their personal life and in the church as well as things that Christians should do.  The majority of these things are opinions, Christian ghetto conditioning, or conditioning from one’s rearing which cannot be substantiated from properly exegeted passages of Scripture.  On the other extreme are those who have come out of these situations who react by saying there should be no kind of list or standard for Christians.  This group tends to equate “liberty” with this mentality (which biblically, of course, it is not).  Christian “liberty” or “freedom” alludes back to our sinful condition in Adam.  In Adam we were bound in sin incapable of serving God.  At regeneration the disposition to serve God is restored to us.  We are now free to serve Him.  If Christian freedom relates to things as petty as having a glass of wine with a meal, for example, then we have not gained anything.  We could do that before regeneration.  A corollary to this is a dispensational one.  Being “free” in Christ means that we are no longer bound by the requirements of previous dispensations.  To be “in” Christ involves living in a new administration.  Thus we are free from all requirements of the Law (including the stipulations related to dress, diet, and worship).  Having come out of the “cage phase” of their early Christian lives, they are determined not to go back.
4. “Offending” in the texts does not refer to someone who is upset by something we did because they disagree with us.  For example, “I won’t ever go to a movie because Mrs. So and So might be ‘offended’ (which being translated: will be mad at me).  “Offending” means to make a person sin.  “Offend” does not mean to displease or irritate a brother.
5. The key texts for Christian liberty are Romans 14-15; 1 Corinthians 8; Colossians 2.
6. Definition of legalism.  Legalism is not the presence of rules, standards, and convictions.  If so, then God is the biggest legalist in the universe.  This would then make legalism good.  Even the New Testament epistles are replete with commands and exhortations.  During the Kingdom Age there will be plenty of rules too—even involving how worship is to be conducted.
7. Definition cont’d.  There are two ways to look at legalism.  One is to say that legalism is the wrong use of rules.  The Law, for example, was good regarding the purposes for which God instituted it.  The Jews were legalists in that they used a good thing for a wrong purpose.  The Law was issued primarily for a sanctifying purpose, but they used it primarily for a justifying purpose.  Thus, they were legalists.  They misused the Law.
8. Definition cont’d.  A second way to look at legalism is to make a parallel with the legalism of Jesus’ day.  The Mosaic Law covered vast areas of life.  Where it spoke to an issue, it was sin to disregard its teaching.  However, the rabbis believed that the people needed specific applications in cases where the Law was not clear.  There emerged from these applications the Talmud which was considered as authoritative as Scripture, because, according to them, these applications were implied in the Law.  By imposing the Talmud on people, they were legalists because they made their interpretation and application as authoritative as the Law.  They set themselves up as lawmakers.  God is the only lawgiver.  If one wants to exercise his scruples in a personal area, that is one’s choice.  But to add one’s scruples to the list of sins already stated in Scripture is inappropriate.
9. Dangers of legalism (among many): 1) it can engender a false humility and spiritual pride (the converse is true as well).  If we produce this in people by enforcing our code on them, then we have caused them to lose reward—the very thing they are attempting to achieve (Col. 2:18); 2) legalism encourages rebellion.  This is much different than the approach in #23 in which people are taught to think biblically; 3) legalism offers an unbiblical substitute for God’s way of dealing with sin.  God’s way places on us the responsibility of setting up limits on what may be lawful; 4) it elevates one’s legalist interpretation/application of Scripture to be equal with Scripture; 5) it burdens the believer with so many restrictions that the Christian life focuses on what ought not to be done and what has to be done.  It takes the joy out of being a Christian.  It leads to disillusionment because it is discovered that Christ’s yoke is not easy nor his burden light; 6) it teaches that self-imposed restrictions make one spiritually superior (the asceticism of monkery; Col. 2; 1 Tim. 4; 1 Cor. 7); 7) it denies biblical doctrine—grace, the goodness of creation, freedom, etc.
10. The issues in this debate, according to the text, are amoral practices.  An amoral practice is in itself neither right or wrong (e.g., how one spends Sunday [and Wednesday for that matter!], men wearing earrings or pony tails, women wearing pants or cosmetics, practicing birth control, one’s relationship to celluloid, smoking a pipe, listening to different types of music, pursuing the secular as a gift from God, etc.).  However, what often happens (especially by the second group mentioned in #3) is that people introduce moral issues into a debate which deals with amoral issues.  They try to pass off the moral as amoral.  If something is objectively sinful according to Scripture, then it is not open for debate in the Christian liberty squall.
11. In this whole issue we must understand that the entire Mosaic Code has been done away.  It is not biblically legitimate to divide the Mosaic Law into civil, moral, and cultic divisions as is often done.  The entire Law as a unit was done away by Christ’s death.  If this point could be grasped then many of the areas debated would dissipate (see my notes on Acts and 1 Timothy).
12. The key issue in living the Christian life is the state of the heart.  This is not to say actions are unimportant.  Nor is it to deny that sometimes we must make ourselves do the right thing even when we do not want to.  The point is: the goal should be the transformation of the inner man, not the outer man.  When this is reversed change will not be lasting and will lead to one’s falling away from the Christian life.
13. We must make a distinction between preferences (as tenaciously as we might want to cling to them.  And, by the way, this is why it is a good thing to have different denominations and churches.  We can go where we are most comfortable.  This should be encouraged.) and what is right/wrong.
14. Believe it or not, one of the main reasons for this debate, is a faulty bibliology.  While we are willing to go to the stake for inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and preservation of Scripture, we fail to deduce from these doctrines the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture.  If we are correct as to the nature of Scripture, then it necessarily follows, that what it does clearly say will be enough for us to have a healthy Christian life.  In addition, though not often thought of like this, preservation should be considered negatively as well as positively.  God not only retained in the Bible what he wanted to be there, but also kept out of the Bible what he did not want to be there.  To add to the Scripture is as much condemned as removing from the Scripture.  Thankfully, the Holy Spirit took care of the inspiration event for us.
15. If we are going to be dogmatic about our convictions, then we must have reasoned Scriptural support.  What I think, my church thinks, or my pastor thinks, is in a sense, irrelevant (though I am a firm believer in the succession of the office of elder from the apostles).  “Dancing was a sin.  When pressed for a biblical justification, defenders of these codes would often back down a bit and reply that although there isn’t a direct verse saying thou shalt not dance, the character of such events justified blanket prohibition.  We didn’t have to check out each particular environment to discern whether it would be wise to dance in one but not in another.  Just don’t dance” (Michael Horton, MR, 14, March/April 2000).
16. The “weak” should not be judgmental.  The “weak” need to learn to relax and trust God to run his universe.  The “weak” also need to have a more serious grasp of the gravity of the judgment seat.  If it is true that one of the worst things a Christian can do is smoke a cigar, then God will severely discipline the person who does at the day of judgment
17. The strong may have to forego certain practices, not from his life entirely, but in the presence of a weaker brother.  His goal is to love his brother and show the utmost concern for his spiritual growth.  “Whereas champagne is a thing indifferent, actively seeking to offend someone for the purposes of putting oneself on a pedestal is sinful—and, ironically, engages in the very self-righteousness that characterizes legalism” (Michael Horton, MR, 14, Mar/Apr 2000).  Love requires us “not to do anything that induces another believer to act contrary to conscience.  That is, these passages do not teach that we must agree with the scruples of another’s conscience nor even that we must act consistently with the scruples of another’s conscience.  Rather, the texts teach that we must not say or do anything that we believe will have the effect of inducing another to act inconsistently with conscience” (David Gordon, MR, March/April 2000, 34).  If, however, the weaker brother is not progressing in his Christian life, refuses to be instructed, and has become embittered in his position, then my opinion is to just leave him alone and live as is deemed appropriate
18. Whatever we feel to be okay for our lives must be in concert with our conscience.  However, we need to be careful here.  Our consciences are affected by the Fall just as the other parts of our personalities.  They can be conditioned by upbringing, dominant personalities, culture, worldliness, and lack of Scriptural understanding.  We should follow our consciences with the awareness that it may have to be renewed by Scriptural truth
19. Our goal in life should be to glorify God in everything we do.  We must understand that we can glorify God through the “nonspiritual” aspects of life with which he has blessed us.  However, beware of the subtleties of sin.  We want to glorify God not see how close we can come to sin
20. In all that we do we must remember our continuing depravity.  We carry gunpowder about us, take heed of sparks.  The Christian life is not a game.  There is much at stake.  Our decisions on earth will affect forever our degree of glory in heaven
21. God will be the judge
22. Enjoy the creation.  There is nothing unclean in itself
23. Legalism is an extremely slippery slope.  Legalists are horribly inconsistent.  Once one invents a standard which is binding on all Christians, there are always numerous inconsistencies.  For example, if one is forbidden to go to a movie theater, then consistency would demand not having a television (after all, if the issue is testimony, then people might think I could be watching something inappropriate; or, horror of horrors, I might be watching football on the Christian Sabbath).  If Christians are not to listen to secular music, then that eliminates Irving Berlin as much as it eliminates Eric Clapton.  When this inconsistency is spotted, then the legalist is forced to create even more rules and caveats.  “Thus, the same individual can exhort a fellow believer to refuse to join coworkers for a beer (I am not advocating this, but relaying Michael Horton’s quote for the main point) under the rubric of avoiding ‘the very appearance of evil,’ (though, this is not what this verse means!) while passionately embracing the worldliness of popular culture in worship and church growth strategies” (Horton, 15)
24. “Avoiding the appearance of evil.”  The word “appearance” in the Thessalonians passage does not mean what is commonly suggested: “If something might look evil then don’t do it just to be safe.”  Rather, the word refers to forms or manifestations of evil.  Thus, the point is that the Christian should not engage in anything sinful in whatever way or form sin may manifest itself.  A “Living Bible” type paraphrase would be “don’t sin.”  Contextually, however, I think this verse is dealing with prophecy (see my Thessalonian notes).
25. Christian living and growth involves a process of prudence and decision-making.  “They have replaced prudence with their own will-worship, dispensing with the difficult, lifelong process of developing character—decision by decision in context after context” (Horton, 15)
26. The solution in dealing with sin is not to demolish everything that might be used to sin. The logic is: some people get drunk, some movies are bad, therefore, we will avoid them altogether.  See the principle in Luther’s words when he was responding to the iconoclasts who sought to demolish abused objects: “Do you suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused?  Men can go wrong with wine and women.  Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?  The sun, the moon, and the stars have been worshipped.  Shall we then pluck them out of the sky?....See how much He has been able to accomplish through me, though I did not more than pray and preach.  The Word did it all [may I add, by itself]….But while I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow” (Jim West, MR, 42, March/April 2000)
27. Encouraging growth and prudence.  “I think Aristotle would tell a mother who is worried about her children seeing any movies, reading any fiction, or hanging out with the wrong crowd, ‘give them an alternative prize.’  In other words, it is at least in part up to parents to provide an environment where truth, goodness, and beauty are known and experienced in depth.  If children are gripped by the truth, they will less likely believe the latest lie.  If they become intimate with that which is good, noble, and worthy of respect, they will be less inclined toward the shallow narcissism that feeds immorality in the first place.  Familiar with lives of great men and women who were shaped by integrity and wisdom, they will at least have something to contrast with the trivial characters they see promoted in the culture.  And they will only come to recognize the inferiority of that which is ugly by being familiar with that which is beautiful.  Prudence is thereby molding character in such a manner that even where there is not a specific rule or defined expectation in a given situation, they will be able to size things up and make a mature decision.  A rule-oriented existence usually stunts the moral growth of people and communities….Once familiar with nobler things, we find ourselves becoming increasingly bored with error, evil, and ugliness” (Horton, 15, 16)
28. There is nothing wrong with churches or schools having standards of conduct.  After all, secular institutions do the same thing.  Evening news anchors wear suits and ties.  This is fine until an institution says that mature, godly Christians wear suits and ties.
29. The biblical logic, I believe, is that if Scripture has not commanded it, neither can you.  God gives the believer the freedom to do anything the Bible does not declare sinful.  This does not apply to rules at work concerning dress codes or other matters.  It doesn’t mean that a college cannot prohibit consumption of alcohol on the part of its students.  But it does mean that the moment such a rule is justified because it supposedly distinguishes earnest Christians who are concerned with biblical principles which can strengthen one’s witness, then it is improper.  “Only Scripture binds the conscience.  If you want to have rules of conduct, fine.  But the moment that they are justified as being biblical (and therefore necessary), as distinguishing earnest Christians from the rest, and as evidence of Christian maturity, they are no longer mere house rules that, although in themselves indifferent, reflect a particular constituency.  When rules concerning things indifferent (not commanded or prohibited in Scripture) are made to be binding on the conscience, they must be rejected.  It is no longer a thing indifferent” (Horton, 46)
30. Cultural Association.  Issues or practices deemed wrong for culturally associated reasons may change over time.  For example, Christians may have chosen to abstain from a practice (like long hair in the 60s or wearing an earring in the 80s) because it associated them with certain groups which were known to promote antibiblical ideas.  This is legitimate.  However, decades later practices may no longer carry those associations which they once did.  Therefore, no one has the right to forbid a practice decades later when the association is no longer valid.  For example, a man wearing hair over his ears in the year 2000 does not have the association it had in the 60s.  By the year 2030, it may be common fashion for men to wear earrings.  If that is the masculine image, then it is inappropriate to forbid it because of an association with homosexuality in the 80s.  In OT times, men wore robes (dresses) but they don’t today.  The masculine ideal has changed.  In OT times, women wore nose rings which was an amoral, cultural practice.  Cultural dictums are not necessarily sinful and there is no reason to always attempt to be living in another generation.  Is this point relevant for Halloween?  While Halloween may have had Satanic origins (and certainly is continued by witches today), does the culture associate Christian children with witchcraft as they would have centuries ago?  If yes, then consistency would demand discarding the dreaded “harvest” celebration in many churches.  If something is being done on Halloween night in the church, how is that any better?  If yes, then we may have to rethink our celebration of Christmas since it had pagan, not Christian origins.
31. Usurping God’s place.  Only God as God has the right of legislation.  One of the fun things about being God is that you get to do this.
32. Legalism and God’s immensity.  God’s immensity means that he is and always has been outside of time.  This means that God is not faddish.  It also means that he is not nostalgic.  There is not a particular era of history which is more sacred to God or for which God longs to be emulated again.
33. Those who are legalistic tend to view a chain of authority as one of the most critical facets of the Christian life.  Their authoritarian demands are usually under the guise of “protection.”  Ironically, they are typically accountable to no one.
34. Legalists typically will not respond well to criticism.  They will liken this to bitterness, rebellion, or gossip.  As the Wizard of Oz thundered: “do you presume to criticize the Great Oz?”
35. Legalists build dependence.  As Dorothy and her friends journeyed to Oz, the lack which they perceived in their lives, was actually possessed by them.  They were convinced that they needed an expert (the wizard) to help them (Veinot, Veinot, and Henzel, A Matter of Basic Principles, 91).
36. Legalists will tend to interpret the Bible through what the Holy Spirit “shows” them rather than through grammatical/historical/contextual methods.  This forms a convenient barrier so that they cannot be questioned, and gives them a basis to reject any view which disagrees with them, labeling it “man’s interpretation,” or a “man-made system of theology.”
37. Legalists tend to discourage independent thinking.
38. Legalists tend to use Scripture verses and phrases as proof texts quite apart from exegesis.  This is not to say that we all have not been guilty of this from time to time, but this is their way to advance their agenda.
39. Legalists tend to adopt a parent/child mentality in dealing with people.  This model dominates in legalistic churches and institutions.  The “leadership” knows what is right for everyone much like a parent would for a child; rather than being servant-leaders where all are treated as equal in Christ
40. The legalist relies on moralism to get people to do the “right” thing.  However, moralism does not deal with the reason we struggle to do the right thing, namely, sin.  Moralism is an external appeal much akin to the Mosaic Law.
41. Legalism is the first step to “atheism.”  No one can measure up perfectly and is always focused on failure and reprimand.  Eventually, frustration can set in and ultimately rebellion, especially with younger people who are not mature enough to see what is happening.  If one sticks it out, the frustration will lead to a joyless, bland existence.
42. Legalists are afraid that Christians can’t handle freedom.  They are afraid they might make mistakes.  But God is big enough to deal with this, and we must realize that we are all in a process in growing in living the Christian life which may include mistakes, much like children growing up.  Remember Squealer’s words in animal farm?  “No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal.  He would be only too happy to let you make your own decisions for yourselves.  But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”
43. Legalists tend to see everything as black or white.  While there are absolutes in the Scripture, many times there are several choices, none of which are wrong.
44. Legalists tend to be wary of dispensationalists.
45. Legalists tend to play on people’s fears as to what might happen if numerous rules are not in place.
46. Legalists evidently believe that people will know we are Christians by our rules rather than by our love.
47. Legalists will want to assimilate people into their groups not being content to merely have them in their groups.  This breaks down independent thinking and eventually convinces people that their leader speaks for God on virtually everything.
48. Legalists believe it is their job to make God’s commands less easily broken by building fences around them.  For example, the rabbis taught that a woman should not look into a mirror on the Sabbath.  Why?  Well, God had said that the Sabbath was to be holy and free from one’s normal work.  That is fine because God said it.  In order to make it harder for one to break the Sabbath law, a woman shouldn’t look into a mirror lest she see a gray hair, pluck it, and thereby “work” on the Sabbath thus breaking it.  They erected an extra law to protect God’s law.  A current example: Christians should never go into a movie theater.  Any Christian serious about holiness would have to acknowledge that much of what is in theaters is inappropriate for Christians.  These things would violate Scripture.  The legalist though erects an extra law, his own law, to protect God’s law by saying that a Christian should never attend any movie.  Now a Christian may have a legitimate conviction that he shouldn’t go to a movie theater for various reasons.  That is fine.  But to make that a law for everybody is to erect an extra law.  God saw fit to leave it where he has left it.  Rather than telling people what not to do, let’s have a rational discussion about the dangers which could be present, the power of the sin nature, etc.
49. Legalists tend to confuse suffering for righteousness’ sake with suffering for their own belligerence.
50. Rather than having discussions with those with whom they disagree, legalists will more likely simply cut themselves off from them, or others from themselves.
51. Legalists will tend to be interested in the private areas of one’s personal life.
52. Legalists will tend to emphasize confession of sin to unbiblical proportions.
53. Legalism tends to represent a certain slice of American culture in the standards that are put forth.  Women wearing dresses, men not having facial hair, etc. will represent a white, middle-class ideal in the United States.  Most legalists would not need to go to wardrobe to go onto the set of Leave it to Beaver.  The center of God’s dealings in history is Israel, not America.
54. Legalism tends to have an “ugly American” mentality.  Think of the folly of imposing superfluous standards on people in other cultures around the world.  More than once we have laughed at converts in India, Mexico, Africa wearing dresses and suits on Sunday morning singing Christian praise choruses. 
55. Many times legalism is an over-reaction to soft living.  Similarly, lordship salvation is an over-reaction to easy-believism.
56. Legalists tend to go into areas which are not areas of expertise.
57. Legalists tend to repeat the same things over and over so that people become comfortable believing it.  When they hear differently, then the different view appears odd and out of step.
58. Many legalists appear so nice and as if God is blessing their lives, therefore, many think they must be on the right track.

Selah (for now)