Thursday, February 04, 2010

Free From the Law Oh Blessed Condition! The Reasons You Should Welcome the Charge of Antinomianism

There is a tendency among some brothers in the Southern Baptist Convention to call "antinomian" (i.e. "against the law") those Christians who don't hold to certain hard and fast "rules" or "laws" those brothers wish to impose on everyone. For example, in a recent discussion over "tithing," one pastor called "antinomian" those Christians who disagreed with his belief that God's "law" demands every believer give 10% of gross income to the local church. This Southern Baptist pastor then writes, "Antinomianism has raised a huge red flag to me and many other pastors. We will ... sound the alarm which will reverberate throughout the SBC to face this issue head on."

Red flags? Alarm? The charge of antinomianism sounds like something we should avoid as Christians, right? Well, not so fast. Those of us who have confidence and trust in Christ's Person and work should welcome the charge of antinomianism. Why? (1). Because when that charge is floated against us it means the gospel is actually being preached by us. Ironically, if you have never been accused of being an antinomian, it is possible you have never actually taught anyone what is so truly good about faith in Jesus Christ. And, (2). If you are accused of being an antinomian you are in some really good company.

The Apostle Paul taught the good news of Jesus Christ very clearly. He was often accused of being antinomian. Some in Rome called him this. Paul responded to their accusations in Romans 6. A few people in Galatia accused him of antinomianism. Paul responded to their charges in Galatians 3. In Acts 21:21 James tells Paul that the Jerusalem church leaders "have been told that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles forsake the law of Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe other laws. Finally, some leaders in Corinth were alarmed by Paul's teaching that led people away from observing biblical rituals (feasts, new moon celebrations, Sabbath observance, etc...) and other biblical laws. In response to their charge of antinomianism, Paul writes, "To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law" (I Corinthians 9:21). The expression translated "I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law" is a peculiar phrase in the original Greek and can be literally rendered, "I am not lawless toward God, but I am inlawed to Christ."

"Inlawed to Christ." Wow. That is a powerful phrase. It means that you are wed to Christ and all the benefits and protection of perfect obedience and righteousness is yours because of CHRIST'S obedience. You reap what you have not sown; you reap what HE has sown. You are a co-heir with Christ, a child of God, and forever blessed because you are "inlawed to Christ." Those who wish to put you under their laws try to convince you that God's favor and blessing comes on your life through YOUR OWN OBEDIENCE to their laws. They will press on you laws from the Old Covenant, or a modern religious laws, or a church laws, or the preachers' laws, or any other number of laws--and try to tell you they are all "biblical" (they always call them "God's laws"). But the mistake they make is claiming that God's favor will only come to you when you "obey" these laws--and if you don't, then you will bring a curse upon your life. This, friends, is totally contrary to the gospel. AGAIN, ALL THE FAVOR AND BLESSING OF GOD IS GUARANTEED YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE INLAWED TO CHRIST.

What then shall we say? How shall we live? What makes us different from those who have NO faith in Christ? What "laws" shall serve as our boundaries in life? Paul says that we "liberty" and "freedom" and should "use this freedom to serve one another in love" (Galatians 5:13) This love, in essence, is our law. James calls it "The Royal Law of Love" (James 2:8). It is the commandment that Jesus gave His disciples and that Jeremiah the prophet promised would be written on our hearts. We are bound to this Royal Law because it is within us. We can't help but "love one another as Christ has loved us" (John 13:34) because we are "inlawed to Him." It's in our DNA. Jesus says that this agape love serves as our trademark of genuine faith. Others know that we are Christ's because they see our love. So, place your confidence in Christ, follow your heart as you love and serve those people God has placed in your life, and enjoy the freedom you have in Him. Don't put yourself under bondage to any law in order to "earn" the favor of God. Trust in God's full and complete favor because of your union with Christ. Then watch the Spirit of God powerfully use you to bring about the kingdom of God on earth. It's so incredible what the Spirit does through His people as we listen to Him. The Spirit is Life. The Spirit is Power. Churches lacking in both life and power lack leaders and people who listen to, and are led by, the Spirit of God.

Wear the charge of antinomianism as a badge of honor. From this short look at antinomianism, five things should be very clear to us as Southern Baptists:

(1). Only those who clearly and plainly preach the good news of faith in Jesus Christ are accused of antinomianism. Nobody who preaches the law is accused of antinomianism.
(2). Never shy away from the charge of antinomianism. Jesus was accused of it, the Apostle Paul was accused of it, and the early church was accused of it. You will be in good company.
(3). We who cast our full confidence in Jesus Christ are not without law, for we are "inlawed to Christ." All the benefits and protection of full and complete righteousness comes through Him. We reap what we have not sown. We reap what He has sown for us.
(4). Those who accuse other Christians of antinomianism are usually wanting to control others by limiting their freedom. Rather than encouraging Christians to follow the leadership of the Spirit, these leaders who are alarmed about antinomianism are wanting something they feel they cannot obtain without imposing "laws" to get it. If we Christians could learn to live by the Spirit through loving and serving the people God has placed in our lives, we would turn the world on its ear.
(5). We should never forget to love those brothers in Christ who accuse us of antinomianism, but we should be also be clear in our articulation of why their accusations are so off base. We should never be ashamed of our complete and utter confidence in God's full blessing for us because of the obedeience of Christ. We are inlawed to Him.

I love the following song, written by Philip Paul Bliss in the mid-1800's:

"Free from the law—oh, happy condition!
Jesus hath bled, and there is remission;
Cursed by the law and bruised by the fall,
Christ hath redeemed us once for all." (P. Bliss)

Our brothers who don't understand our freedom might sing the following:
"Bound to the law-oh, everyone listen!
Jesus did die, but we're on a mission;
Live by the law and try not to fall,
cause Christ did nothin for us at all." (S. Baptist)

Smiling and Free,

Wade Burleson


Brent Hobbs said...

Good post, Wade. :)

Ramesh said...

Fascinating post, Pastor Wade.


It is blessed to be inlawed to Christ.

Oh! What a freedom it is. Thank you Lord Jesus.

Anonymous said...

Without the law it is impossible to know Christ as Savior and Lord.

I have a title for your next book Wade:

"Christian Outlaws"

Can I play the part of sheriff?

~ K

“People who don't Think probably don't have Brains; rather, they have grey fluff that's blown into their heads by mistake.”
~ Winnie the Pooh said...


Sometimes I feel as if I need a translator to understand what you are saying.



P.S. By the way, if Paul can be the "chief of sinners" I can be the "chief of outlaws."

Interestingly enough, the Internet dictionary defines "inlawed" as follows -

"to restore (an outlaw) to the benefits and protection of the law."

This outlawed has been inlawed.

Writer said...


If you're gonna quote me at least give me a link.


Christiane said...

Wade, I love this post.

My Church teaches the same concepts in this way:

"The New Law embodied in and flowing from the Person of Christ is called the LAW OF LOVE because it makes us act out of the love infused by the Holy Spirit, rather than from fear;

a LAW OF GRACE, because it confers the strength of grace to act

a LAW OF FREEDOM, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law,
inclines us to act spontaneously by the prompting of charity and, finally,
lets us pass from the condition of a servant who "does not know what his master is doing" to that of a friend of Christ - "For all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you" - or even to the status of son and heir."

The New Law of Christ contains what we call 'evangelical precepts' that are intended to remove from our lives whatever is incompatible with charity (the Caritas Christi),
so that we may come to live in the fullness of Christ's love and to be at peace in Him. And through Him, we may be at peace with one another. :)

Bob Cleveland said...


Fine, fine post.

Perhaps it is easier to adhere to OT laws, than to embrace the grace of Jesus and to love others as He has loved us. Maybe that's why they resort to name-calling about it.

Antinomianism: I'm with you, Bring it on!

Hey .. that's gonna be my new mantra .. embrace the grace!

Debbie Kaufman said...

Amen. I am beginning to think there are a lot of accusations we should embrace. :)

Rex Ray said...

Great post – Alway complement before the knife. :)

Your wrote: “In Acts 21:21 James tells Paul that the RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES “have been told that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake the law of Moses…” Huh?

Verse 20 and 21: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law. But they have been told about you that you teach…”

Yes, Paul was accused of being an Antinomian in this Scripture but not by religious authorities, but by the Jerusalem Church as verse 22 points out: “So what can be done? They will certainly hear that you’ve come.”

This verse is made clearer by “Wesley's Notes 21:22 What is it therefore - What is to be done? The multitude must needs come together - They will certainly gather together in a tumultuous manner, unless they be some way pacified.”

Paul had this problem thrown in his lap that the congregation may stone him for being a Antinomian. “What can be done?”

The simple solution would be for James to tell his congregation that Paul was a good guy.

Would they have believed him? James was so popular and know as the “Just” that the RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES, (Pharisees) told him, “We and all the people should obey thee.” (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs)

So why didn’t James straighten his congregation out? The answer is in solving this unknown question that arises in verse 21 “They have been told about you…”

WHO told the congregation?

Is the answer too simple? That preachers keep their congregations informed, and for James to tell his different would make him a hypocrite.

Oh, but we can’t believe that for to do so might interfere with inerrancy.

ml said...

Wade, Chuck Swindoll in Grace Awakening offers great insight here and gives an incredible quote from Martyn Lloyd-Jones. He says if people are not misunderstanding your preaching as antinomian then you might want to consider if in fact you are preaching the gospel at all. "If your preaching of the gospel of God's free grace in Jesus Christ does not provoke the charge from some of antinomianism, you're not preaching the gospel of the free grace of God in Jesus Christ."
— David Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Anonymous said...

"Sometimes I feel as if I need a translator to understand what you are saying."

"...that's what [your congregation] said."


Paul Burleson said...

Bob and Debbie said it for me.

GREAT post Wade. said...


Good point, and I agree. I have changed "religious authorities" to "Jerusalem church leaders" to make it clearer.


Wade said...


I sense you took my statement about needing a translator to understand what you say personally. I fully admit that my inability to understand could be a deficiency within me, not you.

My statement was simply an expressing of my feelings, not an indictment on your ability to communicate.

Someone can speak Japanese BRILLIANTLY around me, and the deficiency to understand is all mine. What you say, you say clearly--it just seems you and I are speaking different languages.

I think, though, you would find the congregation I lead understands what I am saying. Were you to ever speak at Emmanuel, they might face the same struggle understanding what you mean as I. said...




"Embrace the Grace!" Our new motto!


Steve said...

It was always such a tragedy for the ''holier-than-thous' in Jesus' day to look like religion on the outside while completely worldly on the inside. Some in our day have taken the false religious front and made a competitive sport of it. They then cackle over their moral and 'theological' superiority.

Maybe the most ironic part is that these were the same dudes who were screeching at the Catholics a generation ago for the very same thing. Perhaps it's okay if you eat enough grilled meat and hot sauce.

WTJeff said...


I think it really goes back to a subject you addressed long ago, embracing the sufficiency of the scriptures. It seems our Western culture needs more of the blanks filled in than God has provided. So, we find rules, whether in the OT or man made, to fill in the blanks. Also, God's grace is so overwhelming and all encompassing, it's difficult for our finite minds to comprehend. Man made rules are easier to abide by than to forge into the glorious unknown brought on by God's grace. Problem is, not forging into the glorious unknown robs us of seeing God working in miraculous ways. We're actually robbing ourselves of experiencing the fullness of God.



P.S. My word verification is "chokstr" did it know I'm a Cowboys fan?.....:)

Byroniac said...

Wade, may your tribe increase!

greg.w.h said...

I really do believe that the person who emphasizes relating to God through rules after profession of faith is doing so due to insecurity and the inability to fully accept God's offer of grace. I believe that the person typically will be brought to the point that he or she fully comprehends grace, but one can hardly be faulted for wondering how on earth God is so willing and able to forgive us our sin and cleanse us of unrighteousness.

I will argue that our inability to fully comprehend grace is in equal proportion to the depth of the mystery regarding God's willingness to extend it to us. And since that is such a great, unfathomable mystery, we should anticipate many, many moments when we lapse back into behavior that emphasizes our own ability to be in control of our righteousness.

What we need in those moments is to recognize that we were not made alive to revert to the deadness we experience by trying to fulfill the law: we simply can't after all because even a single sin undoes--like a gigantic ctrl-Z--all of our righteousness. We were made alive in order to LIVE in relationship with our Bridegroom. I respect that those who want to invoke a set of rules desire to do so to prove their seriousness to God. I offer that a serious view especially of Paul's writings requires you to admit that--as he put it--all things are lawful EVEN IF they aren't all good for us.

This isn't about fulfilling a legal standard. It's about falling backwards and being caught by grace over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over until we finally trust that God really does love us just as we are as his children and he has provided the ultimate sacrifice to take care of everything--and I mean EVERYTHING--else.

I'm a miserable person at times, still. I'm difficult to get along with and pretty much a denial of every fruit of the Spirit that ought to be present in my life. But I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord and I am convinced beyond the shadow of doubt that "he is able to keep that which I've committed unto him against that day."

You might say that through sin "I keep falling in love with him over and over and over and over again." ;)

Greg Harvey

Bennett Willis said...

I trust that the pastor (opening paragraph) was setting a good example by tithing 10% of his/her whole pay package.

Bennett Willis

Byroniac said...

Instead of having the pastor tithe 10%, why not just take a pay cut equal to the amount tithed (gross, not net) and skip the inconvenience entirely?

Funny also how much God is used as the crutch in these tithing arguments, when He never receives any of it anyway. said...


I went back and copied a comment you made on another blog. You wrote:

"What about Malachi 3:9-12? Those verses are in the Bible too, and they help define a context. Pro-tithers adopt a figurative hermeneutic here and leave literal interpretation behind.

Mal 3:9: Cursed? This whole nation? America? SBC? No, Israel.

Mal 3:10: The tithe was food not money. Even the language "open the windows of heaven" is not simply flowery speech but speaks of the blessing of rain in an agrarian society, producing future tithes back to God.

Mal 3:11 This makes the agricultural blessing in Mal 3:11 make more sense (because this verse would not directly concern the contemporary American in a literal context).

Mal 3:12 KJV "Delightsome land" God addresses the entire nation as recipients of divine blessing upon fulfilled obedience. The entire nation of America isn't even entirely Christian, much less willing to tithe. And again, this is about Israel, not America. So, in my opinion, we're several steps removed from a literal interpretation when trying to produce a good reason to tithe today (at least based on this passage)"

That, Byroniac, was one of the most perceptive comments I've read on the whole subject.


Jake Barker said...

"Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at
Quote from MLK's I have a dream speech.

B Nettles said...

Without the law it is impossible to know Christ as Savior and Lord.

That has got to be one of the most legalistic statements you've ever made, Kevin.

What of Abraham? What of Noah? What of Adam?

Unknown said...

B. Nettles: For that matter, what of gentiles who came to faith in Christ without ever having known about the old covenant? The converts in Philippi--which was so bereft of Jewish influence as to be without a synagogue--come to mind.

Kevin, are you suggesting that when missionaries go to unevangelized parts of the world to tell people of Christ, we must first teach them the old covenant?

david b mclaughlin said...

Maybe your best post ever. If not, it's at least one dear to my heart.

David Mc

Byroniac said...

Thank you, Wade!

Byroniac said...


I keep thinking about Paul in Acts 17. He didn't use the Law there to win them to Christ in 17:30-31. He used the Resurrection of Christ.

Anonymous said...


I did not take it personally, and you do not have to explain condescension to me.

Anyway, here is the translation: I cleaned up a "that's what she said" joke and applied it to you. What makes it not serious is the fact that I have praised your preaching many times. So smile and move on.

Dr. Nettles,

The statement was simply a bold expression to defend a portion of Scripture I find being attacked in this line of thinking. I am quite certain that you and Wade and I and others here interpret Galatians 3 exactly the same. But I believe there is still a purpose for the law, be it the 10 Commandments, the Pentateuch, the entire OT, or simply the words of Christ. The law shows us our sin. It shows us where we fall short and drives us to the cross.

I think that one can argue that without the law, the righteous requirements of God would be unknown. And if we do not recognize that we offend a Holy God then we cannot and will not repent.

I also understand that all this is a work of the Holy Spirit. I do not see conflict in the need to recognize God's righteous requirements.

If that is legalism in your book them I am guilty and you may use your legalism to beat me into submission. :) Or your grace to enlighten me.


Anonymous said...


I am saying you teach the entire Word to them. I am not looking for some mission field conversion prayer, I am concerned that people understand the Gospels AND the Prophets AND the Law--indeed the entire redemptive story, so that they too may join in the story as a redeemed people of God.

It is my opinion that you cannot ask people to "take Jesus" without explaining to them why.

Jesus saves? So what?

Anonymous said...


Acts 17...

(2-3) ...he reasoned with them form the Scriptures, explaining and proving...

(11) ...they received the word daily...examining the Scriptures daily...

(17-18) ...he reason in the synagogue with the Jews...preaching Jesus and the resurrection...

(32) When they heard of the resurrection of the dead...we will hear you again ABOUT this...some men joined him and believed...

Paul was not carrying around his "Book of John" nor his "Jesus" film. Nor in Athen (22, ff) was he speaking to a group would have been familiar with the law and prophets. But his message was the same. He told them of the Good News of the story of redemption. Every story has a climax--the Resurrection is the climax of the Gospel and thus gets first billing in this account.


Christiane said...

Wade writes 'If we Christians could learn to live by the Spirit through loving and serving the people God has placed in our lives, we would turn the world on its ear.'

Wade is right. We know he is right, because it actually happened.
Suppose an emotionally-disturbed man murdered your children, and then killed himself, leaving his own family bereft of a husband and a father. Could you immediately forgive him? Could you and your faith community offer loving-kindness to his widow and children, in the Name of the Lord, by visiting them, bringing gifts of food and offers of support? Could you stand with the widow at the funeral of this man who had killed your own little ones?

The family of the murderer of their daughters was cared for by the Amish at Nickel Mines.
The Amish way attracted the attention of the world, which 'could not understand' how they were able to do it. These Amish people of faith, so strict with themselves in the rule of their 'Ordnung', were filled with mercy towards a family whose loss 'they understood'. In their humility and in their compassion, the Amish bowed to the 'Royal Law' and showed the world the fruits of the 'Peace that surpasses all understanding'. Surely the hearts of the Amish were enkindled with love by the Holy Spirit.

It is written in the Book of James 2:13 this:
'mercy triumphs over judgement'.
A small phrase, often overlooked by those filled with pride and judgmentalism who claim Christ as Lord.
'Mercy triumphs over judgement': a small phrase that would be ignored by a 'world' which can not possibly understand it, unless it's teaching is lived out in witness before the world, as in the way of the humble and compassionate Amish at Nickel Mines.

linda said...

My favorite hymn quoted, and AT LAST, after so many years,

A REAL BAPTIST SERMON (ok, post, literalists) that should be preached in every Christian church this Sunday.

Weeping for joy,

Anonymous said...

It is my opinion that we have a many in our congregation who are antinomian largely do to dispensational residue.

Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

This from Banner of Truth....think Ian Murray!

The 'third use' of the law is to function as the rule of life for the believer. One of the most famous statements of this comes from the Puritan Samuel Bolton in his The True Bounds of Christian Freedom - 'The law sends us to the gospel for our justification; the gospel sends us to the law to frame our way of life'.

from here....

Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

I like what Ray Comfort has to say about the law. Its the key for people to understand in order to come to a true understanding of the Gospel.

Law to the proud.....Grace to the humble.

Robert I Masters

linda said...

Robert, I believe you are missing the point entirely.

I don't believe any of us are advocating deliberate disobedience to God.

Rather, we place our trust in Jesus and trust Him to keep His Word. Our assurance is based on HIS FAITHFULNESS, not our assessment of our own works.

After all, ALL our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. All of them.

And our hearts are deceitful. said...

Robert I Masters,

I respect your's and Kevin's covenant theology.

I disagree with it completely.

My law is Christ, and I go to Him for instructions, not to the laws of Israel--which were fulfilled in Him.



KB said...

Good thoughts Wade.

What is the Bible?

Anonymous said...

Fair enough Wade,

However....It would seem inconsistent to use other Reformed Baptists to bolster other arguments you make without acknowledging their "Covenant theology" John Gill,Charles Spurgeon et al.

Christiane said...

Romans 13:10

" Love does no evil to the neighbor;
hence, love is the fulfillment of the law."

Anonymous said...


Who is this Christ?

Where are his instructions?

You mean the dead prophet who spoke on the mount and in the garden? What does he have to do with me? What is it that makes him the one to be listened to? Who is his God?

I mean sure, they say he rose from the dead. But why? For my sins? Are you called me a sinner? What is sin? Who am I sinning against?

This is what irritates me about you Wade, you want to brush me off by lumping me into a specific ideology, then throwing it all overboard. You obviously do not respect any idea other than your own. Covenant Theology is not some anti-baptistic, anti-freedom ideology. It boils down to simply this: We do not have 2 Bibles. We have one. And there is a clear thread of redemption that permeated it all. All of the Gospel is not contained "in the Gospels." The Word of God is given to us in the Canon of Scripture containing all 66 books not as 66 individual books of random acts, but 66 pieces neatly fit, joined together, purposefully foreordained for the glory of God and the redemption of His people.


Anonymous said...

Btw, since Dr. Klouda is a featured topic on this blog from time to time it only seems appropriate to wish her a Happy Birthday today!!!

What's left of it anyway.

####### <--3 layer cake w/ candles

\@@@/ <--and a cherry pie!

Paul Burleson said...


It is interesting to me that the 1 Corinthians 9:21 reference is the ONLY time Paul makes ANY mention of the law in that letter.

In using it there, as you point out, he speaks of people without law [Gentiles] and people under the law [Jews] and himself as a third kind of person being in-lawed to Christ.

It seems to me that Paul did NOT see the Law of Moses as a standard for that third group. He saw their's to be the Law of Christ. He's the new Law-giver as He is the new High Priest, the new Prophet, the new King and the new and final Lamb.

I love the fact that the character of God is seen and revealed in the Law of Moses which was fulfilled and has decayed and vanished, [Heb 8:13] but is now seen in the Law of Christ of the New Covenant to a far greater, new and true depth unknown in the Old Covenant. He has taken away the first that He may establish the second as Hebrews 10:9 says.

The new standard for us as New Covenant people is there is to be no HATING instead of no killing. No LUST instead of no adultery. EVERYDAY is a Sabbath [resting in His Grace] instead of the seventh and we are to Love AS WE ARE LOVED [the New commandment of love] instead of trying to love God with our whole heart, mind and neighbors as ourselves. [The Law of Moses.]

Antinomian..? I don't think so. But whatever the followers of the Law of Moses wish to say we are as followers of the new Law-Giver..I accept.

Lydia said...

"Instead of having the pastor tithe 10%, why not just take a pay cut equal to the amount tithed (gross, not net) and skip the inconvenience entirely?"

If he is preaching a tithe system then it needs to be more like 25% off the top witheld from his pay. said...


Gill and Spurgeon were Baptists of the classical since -- they were nor Reformed in the Presbyterian or Puritan since.

The Baptists of the 18th Century wrote precisely what I am saying.

Wade said...


This Jesus does not tell me to "keep the Sabbath laws." He tells me to rest in Him.

This Jesus does not tell me to keep the sacrificial laws. He tells me to trust in His one and complete sacrifice.

This Jesus does not tell me to keep the dietary laws, or the New Moon celebrations, or the civil ordinances of Israel (i.e. "put to death the rebellious teenager.").

This Jesus does not tell me to bring grain to the Jewish temple storehouse in order to have the windows of heaven open and rain fall on my crops. He tells me He will supply my every need, and even when I am faithless, He will remain faithful.

This Jesus speaks to me in the gospels. He tells me all of the law and the prophets pointed to Him, and He fulfilled their words - literally.

This Jesus does not expand the Old Covenant laws, He gives me His law - love one another as He has loved me.

His Spirit, the other Comforter He promised, has been given to me. I am baptized in Him by Christ Himself, and I hear the voice of Christ through the Spirit who leads me.

This is the Jesus I serve.

Follow the laws that are beneficial to you.

I follow Him.

In His Grace,


Anonymous said...


This Jesus did not have to for He never told you to stop.


Unknown said...

Amen Wade.
Amen Paul!

Anonymous said...

Sorry....I believe history clearly shows you to be incorrect.

One example with Charles Spurgeon.

Robert I Masters

He preached a lot on Law in the believers life

Tom Parker said...


The SBC pastor said:"We will ... sound the alarm which will reverberate throughout the SBC to face this issue head on."

What in the world does he and others think they are going to do?

It all sounds very divisive to me.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Parker said...


You do realize by coming back here it makes you a ????.

Lydia said...

"There is a tendency among some brothers in the Southern Baptist Convention to call "antinomian" (i.e. "against the law") those Christians who don't hold to certain hard and fast "rules" or "laws" those brothers wish to impose on everyone."

Sin is lawlessness

Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness sin is lawlessness. 5You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.

1 John 3

Byroniac said...


I was not speaking of the Bereans in Acts 17. I referenced two Scriptures in vv. 30-31, concerning Mars Hill. I should have stated my context concerned Gentiles at Mars Hill, not the Jews at Berea. But, since you bring them up as well, I note that the Paul very likely used the Law in talking with the Bereans. That's understandable, because they're Jews. However, I do not believe you find a trace of the Law in Paul's message on Mars Hill to the Gentiles (so, though I like Way of the Master, it seems he did not use their approach here). Why is this?

Christiane said...

Thank God you escaped and found your way back.
Admit it: you really like us after all. We love you, you know, even when you're 'bad'.
Any way, you're back now.
It just wasn't the same when you were gone.
Love, L's

Byroniac said...


I have to agree with someone else on another blog. I seldom agree with you, but you do have a great sense of humor. I know you're not out to win friends and influence necessarily, but to pursue what you believe is the truth, but remember---but for the Grace of God, there go I! (aka Total Depravity)

Unknown said...

I wonder if it wouldn't be helpful for people to listen to at least the introductory message of your series on the Ten Commandments.

Here is a quote: "Then why study the Ten Commandments if our code of conduct as a believer is different? It is a good foundation at which to begin self-examination. For example, the commandment is "Don't commit adultery" but the Christian feels within his heart the finger of God writing, "don't even look upon a woman with lust." These laws remind us of what God has "written on our hearts."

It really helped me understand the continuing use of the Ten Commandments and other OT principles even though, as a Christian "all things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient."

Darrell said...


Gill and Spurgeon were Baptists of the classical since -- they were nor Reformed in the Presbyterian or Puritan since.

The Baptists of the 18th Century wrote precisely what I am saying."


"I respect your's and Kevin's covenant theology.

I disagree with it completely."


Writer said...


I am the pastor in the first paragraph and I gave 15% of my total package in 2009. That is grace giving which starts with the tithe as a minimum, but we (all of us)ought to be giving more.

That last sentence is a direct quote from my conversation this evening with the president of SEBTS on this topic. Are you guys gonna call him a legalist too?

So now that I have been transparent and honest with you, will you do the same for me? Want to reveal your percentage giving and what you based it on?


Since you weighed in on this too, care to reveal your giving?

I don't really care what either of you give. I'm trying to show you how silly your remarks truly are.


Lydia said...

I don't really care what either of you give. I'm trying to show you how silly your remarks truly are.

Is it a sin it sin to take the tax deduction for what you 'tithe'. It seems strange to ponder because the OC tithing system was really a tax system to support Israel the Theocracy. So, it would seem a bit hypocritical to take a tax deduction for tithes. It would mean folks are not really tithing the full 10%.

If you tithe 15% and take the deduction, you might possibly be at the full 10%. I don't guys, what say you?

Do you point this out to folks when you teach the tithe system?

Byroniac said...

Les Puryear,

I honestly do not know. However, I can confidently state that it is well below 10% and that my conscience is clear on the matter (mainly because the percentage itself is not of primary importance but obedience to God). I am afraid the exact percentages and details of giving are known only to Divine Omniscience, because I do not see the need to keep track of them when giving as the Spirit leads. And by the way, not all gifts are money, so exact monetary figures can be computed differently.

I am not trying to be insulting. If I have been, I apologize. I am personally an opponent to your theological position, but I am not a personal enemy. I am concerned for people in the SBC over this and other issues. I can see a lot of division in an area where there should not be division, along with false accusations of antinomianism. Perhaps the future of the SBC is to unravel itself in a series of doctrinal distresses and ecclesiastical agonies. Maybe this is the cost of true Reformation. I do not know, but I do know as an outsider looking in that these events cast a certain light of irony on stated intentions for numerical growth and spiritual prosperity.

I truly do not understand why you consider comments like mine to be silly. Whatever silliness you see in them is completely lost on me. I might not be able to claim any sort of mainstream theological view compared to those in the SBC, but there's a refreshing number of fine SBC folks who agree with me and in fact, held these positions long before I even considered them.

Ramesh said...

From the Barna Group study on tithing, the statistics have somewhat held steady since 2000. That is the number of people who tithed.
Tithing in 2007

Whether they believe in the principle of tithing or not, few Americans give away that much money. In 2007, the research revealed that just 5% of adults tithed.

Not surprisingly, some population groups were more likely than others to have given away at least ten percent of their income. Among the most generous segments were evangelicals (24% of whom tithed); conservatives (12%); people who had prayed, read the Bible and attended a church service during the past week (12%); charismatic or Pentecostal Christians (11%); and registered Republicans (10%).

Several groups also stood out as highly unlikely to tithe: people under the age of 25, atheists and agnostics, single adults who have never been married, liberals, and downscale adults. One percent or less of the people in each of those segments tithed in 2007.

Among all born again adults, 9% contributed one-tenth or more of their income.

The study also showed that Protestants were four times as likely to tithe as were Catholics (8% versus 2%, respectively).

Tithing Since 2000

The percentage of adults who tithe has stayed constant since the turn of the decade, falling in the 5% to 7% range. The Barna tracking reported that the proportion of adults who tithed was 7% in 2006 and 2005; 5% in 2004 and 2003; 6% in 2002; and 5% in 2001

So in my opinion, people are getting stressed out unnecessarily, that the tithing system is being undermined.

The interesting part of the study is that amongst evangelicals, 24% tithed. That is a huge number.

Rex Ray said...

You’re correct that the “Jerusalem church leaders” had been told of Paul being an antinomian before his arrival, but

WHO told the church leaders? I believe these are some clues:

1. (Galatians 2:4 Living) “…false brethren…who came to spy as to whether we obeyed the Jewish laws are not.”

Spies always report to someone.

2. (Galatians 2:12 Living) “…when some Jewish friends of James came, he [Peter] wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore because he was afraid of what these Jewish legalist…would say.”

It’s obvious these friends of James were going to tell the church leaders. I don’t believe Peter was afraid of them but was afraid of the church leaders.

3. (Acts 15:24) James said: “…certain went out from us have troubled you…saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the laws; to whom we gave no such commandment.”

I believe there was communication between these men and the church leaders.

4. 2 Corinthians 3:1 “…false teachers…bring long letters of recommendation…they make you their slaves…take advantage of you, put on airs, and slap you in the face.”

Did these “teachers’ report back to the ones that gave them recommendations? – Which may have been church leaders? Were these teachers the same or similar teachers as shown below in # 6 (3 John 1:5)?

I believe reporting to church leaders continued as shown by Third John: (and goes on today)

5. (1:3 Contemporary English) “It makes me very happy when the Lord’s followers come by and speak openly of how you OBEY the truth.”

6. (1:5 Living) “Dear friend, you are doing a good work for God in taking care of the traveling teachers…”

7. (1:6 Contemporary English) “They have told the church…you were good enough to welcome them and to send them on their mission…”

They reported to church leaders. Was their mission checking on “theological agreement” just as Jim Richards said?: “Those who depart theologically will be identified and called to repent.”

8. Seems elder John found a person that had departed theologically in verse (9 Living): “I sent a brief letter to the church about this, but proud Diotrephes…does not admit my authority over him and refuses to listen to me.”

Wade, those Scriptures would indicate how church leaders were kept informed, but changing your post to “Jerusalem church leaders” is still not correct in reference to identifying “they” in Acts 21:21.

The “they” in verse 21 is the same “they” in verses 20 and 22 which is the congregation.

So your post should not read: “In Acts 21:21 James tells Paul that the Jerusalem church leaders "have been told that you…”

But read: ‘In Acts 21:21 James tells Paul that the Jerusalem church members "have been told that you…”

Thanks for your friendly reply. I hope it’s the same should you change your post again.

Rex Ray said...

To All,
The flag in my picture almost looks like a board because the top was held with a metal rod while the rest was free to move.

Yesterday, I put the 8’ pole back up with a new flag because a wind storm had torn the flag in half.

The rip in the flag occurred where the ‘free to move’ met the stiffness by the rod.

I replaced the flag without the rod, and now the whole flag can move together in cooperation.

I see the SBC with its legalism; holding part the flag stiff while the rest is free to do God’s will as the Holy Spirit moves them.

I believe if there are not changes, the SBC will be ripped in half as seen in the decline already.

I have less of a problem with inerrancy if it’s not used as a rod of legalism that is now being used to separate brothers in Christ in cooperating to win the world for Him.

Ramesh said...

I am copying Byroniac's comment in the earlier post.
Byroniac said...
Les Puryear's comment surprised me and causes me concern for the SBC. What also concerns me in relation to this is a fact that Dr. Russ Kelly on his website brought up: the existence of an official SBC policy document mandating that its employees endorse the pro-tithing position. Not to be a Chicken Little on this topic, but I'm guessing this could have major shakedown potential. I'm concerned for my friends in the SBC on this issue (and others) for future tests of fellowship and potential division.

SBC Position paper.

FRI FEB 05, 11:59:00 PM 2010

Ramesh said...

I am guessing the current problems as people perceive with believers Giving has been impacted due to economic stresses that have taken place in the past year. So some churches are probably being hit with a drop in Giving compared to earlier years.

Rex Ray said...

To Baptists,
You think “storehouse tithing” is rough? One person, not Baptists, told me when they joined the church, the amount of their 10% tithe was figured by the church and given them.

After several years, due to circumstances, they have not attended that church in six months.

No contact from the church was made by visits, phone calls or otherwise except mail saying “Tithe due: xxx”.

Hefe said...

If we are going to insist on the validity of the tithe system for today, then why not the WHOLE thing? After all, there were two separate tithes expected of Israelites, both equaling 10%, and a third 10% brought every three year. So in truthfulness, the "tithe" should be approximately 23.3% of income, not 10%, if we truly want to be faithful to the Old Covenant system. Who's in for that? said...

Interesting, is it not, that SBC entities are MANDATING through position papers certain doctrines and behaviors (tithing, no private prayer language, baptism in a Baptist church, an ordained baptizer, etc...).

We are making creedal people look soft.

Our forefathers are rolling over on their heavenly living room couches.


P.S. Les, you better watch out, or your soteriological views are next on the hidden letter list. And Les, don't come complaining to us when they say SEE YAA!

We told you.


Tom Parker said...


You said:"I am the pastor in the first paragraph and I gave 15% of my total package in 2009. That is grace giving which starts with the tithe as a minimum, but we (all of us)ought to be giving more.

That last sentence is a direct quote from my conversation this evening with the president of SEBTS on this topic. Are you guys gonna call him a legalist too?

So now that I have been transparent and honest with you, will you do the same for me? Want to reveal your percentage giving and what you based it on?


Since you weighed in on this too, care to reveal your giving?

I don't really care what either of you give. I'm trying to show you how silly your remarks truly are."


Did you really need to disclose your level of giving? Did you really need to ask others to publicly state their level of giving? I for one really did not need to know yours and have no desire to know the others.

You're right this is all very silly but for the fact I believe you and others that think the way you do are going to attempt to add another requirement that is going to eliminate people from leadership positions in the SBC.

As Wade says you really ought to be careful because you might one day be on the list to be eliminated from the SBC.

But thanks for being transperant because I sure know were you're coming from know--creedal.

This is really going to help with the GCRTF! Not.

BTW, Les you were the one that started this fire when you posted a blog that accused Christians of being lawless.

Bob Cleveland said...

A couple of offhand observations about that most cherished of Baptist beliefs .. soul competency (or priesthood of the believe).

One, it might be more important to "leadership" if us'ns down here in the pews acted like we believed it. And acted like we believe it to the extent that we profess that somebody besides "me", has it, too.

Secondly, if we don't act like it, perhaps we need to examine the strength, or lack thereof, in the pulpits. And the purpose of the Sunday School.

Yeah, I know we're all a big family, and families have disagreements all the time. But that's "in the natural", and I doubt that's the behavioral standard for a bunch of professing Christians.

We tithe. We started for the wrong reason (guilt .. I know now it was wrong), but we've done it since 1970 or 1971, God has blessed us wonderfully, and I ain't about to stop. And I don't care whether anyone else does or not. Or think I should, or not.

Hey .. the security word is "hylardsm" .. is that some new religion .. "High Lardism"? Man oh man, I could be a prophet in that bunch!

Anonymous said...

While doing some reading this morning I listened to the hymn which inspired the title of the OP. I stopped to read through the lyrics in the 4 verses and refrain provided on this site and one stanza kept bugging me for at least a half hour this morning.

"Cursed by the law and bruised by the fall,"

My first impression was that the author has it backwards. For indeed we ARE cursed by the fall, and bruised each time we fail to keep laws, or standards under which we place ourselves. So I wanted to know a bit more about what Paul meant by the phrase "cursed by the law."

I found this essay by F.F. Bruce which may in some ways bridges the gap between the divergent views on this comment stream. If anything it goes beyond "Follow the laws that are beneficial to you. I follow [Christ]."


~ K

Lydia said...

"Did you really need to disclose your level of giving?"

Doesn't that violate the 'law' of Matt 6? :o)

Rex Ray said...

You said, “For indeed we ARE cursed by the fall..."

Have you forgotten in the past some lady enlightened us that God’s curse was only on the devil and the soil?

“Then the Lord God said to the serpent: because you have done this, you are cursed…” (Genesis 3:14 Holman)

“And He said to Adam…the ground is cursed because of you.” (Genesis 3: 17 Holman)

Another question, Kevin, how is it that sometimes half the comments are made trying to straighten you out, but very few are made trying that on me?

Anyone would rather be corrected, spoken ill of, told they’re stupid – than ignored. I’ll admit it – I’m jealous.

Byroniac said...

Rex Ray, cheer up friend, I do not ignore you (though you might not be able to tell, since I seldom interact with your comments). :)

Byroniac said...

Rex Ray,

I'm kinda jealous of the attention Kevin gets, too.


You're a good guy, Kevin, at heart. Maybe I come from the much more liberal end of the spectrum, but we disagree on some things. Oh well. Life goes on! (And I've found out I've been wrong on too many things way too often, and I don't see any signs that will stop any time soon...)

Anonymous said...


Do not covet the comments directed towards me. My Psychiatrist says I will be on Abilify the rest of my life as a result.

"My cross I'll carry 'till I see Jesus."


~ K

Rex Ray said...

Hey! Thanks!

Writer said...


You said, "BTW, Les you were the one that started this fire when you posted a blog that accused Christians of being lawless."

It's obvious to me that someone needed to stir this up.

I'll leave you all to your mainstream Baptist love fest. Have a great Sunday.


Tom Parker said...


You said to me:"It's obvious to me that someone needed to stir this up.

I'll leave you all to your mainstream Baptist love fest. Have a great Sunday."

Congratulations to you for stirring everything up, because you have. I am impressed with the people who say you are wrong knowing full well what your response to them will be. You offer no grace, but myself and others say to you we offer you grace unlike you do us.

You really need to relax a little more and get out of the name calling and sarcasm business. Also a little less negativity would be advisable. It is beneath the dignity of a Pastor to conduct himself the way you have with this tithing issue.

We've got enough serious problems in NC without your adding to the list.

I really am concerned about you and I really mean this unlike your "Have a great Sunday"--not really sure your heart was in that comment.

We really do love you Les even when you stir the pot like you are stirring it.

Anonymous said...

I know Les, isn't it just sickening that Christians of various beliefs get together on a blog and actually discuss, argue, play fake sword fights, laugh, and love?

I mean cuz my Bible tells me to not associate with anyone who does not believe as I do. Of course to be really biblical I have to disassociate with myself sometimes, and that leads to more Abilify and...but enough about me, what do you think about me?


Christiane said...

With the perceived contention between the 'mainstream' Baptists and 'Baptist Identity', I wonder where Les sees the role of all Baptists within the Body of Christ?

Some boast about following an OT rule, and condemn others for not doing it.
But in the Book of Galatians, chapter 6, St. Paul says that those arguments no longer matter:
that Christians should only boast about the Cross of Christ the Lord by which they are crucified to this world.

In Christ, Christians are a 'new creation'. He asks much more of us than ten-percent of our substance.
We are asked to bear one another's burdens in fulfillment of His Law.

In the cold and the darkness that has come from denominational strife, do we each go alone to put on a fur coat to warm only ourselves? Or do we light a fire so that all may gather and benefit together 'in community' ?

It seems to me that there are two directions from which to choose:
one way is to seek to satisfy selfish interests only;
the other way is to help to contribute the benefit of all in the community, each according to the gifts they have been given to share.

BTW, has anyone ever considered that in a Church, the poor that give ten-percent are giving far, far more proportionally of what they depend on for survival
than the rich, for whom ten per-cent is nothing in comparison?

Just a thought.

Tom Parker said...


Les said:"I'll leave you all to your mainstream Baptist love fest. Have a great Sunday."

I wish Les would define for me and others just what a mainstream Baptist is. Who knows he might have meant it as a compliment, but it did not come actross that way.

Maybe he will come back here and clarify.

Anonymous said...


You always have a wonderful way of putting things into perspective. :)

Mainstream Baptists = Not Mainstream; Liberal Light.

Baptist Identity = Baptists who can identify others' faults.

Reformed Baptists = Me.

Byroniac said...

Tom Parker,

I was not going to respond to Les Puryear's comment, but statements like his offer evidence he is becoming unwilling to deal with the opposing arguments, and that he has at least a temporary desire to withdraw into a theological "safe" zone. I have done this myself many times. I am trying to learn when a conversation is over and it is better to leave it alone and walk away for the time being. I think this is one of those times.

Byroniac said...

Kevin, you know some of our Presbyterian brothers would contest your adoption of the label "Reformed." :)

Christiane said...

I wonder how far Christ would have taken His message if He had been impacted easily by those who rejected and scorned Him and His teachings ?

And the Apostles?
Without the Holy Spirit's coming, they might have never emerged from hiding, terrified, in the Upper Room.

Whatever we know about Christianity, we must accept that rejection and scorn and persecution must be answered only with love and forgiveness.
And above all, without fear.

This is a hard teaching to learn. But we are called to do it in witness, because this was the way of Christ among us.

Byroniac said...


I have another question, and maybe I'm wrong here. But, when I read the line by Bliss, "Cursed by the law and bruised by the fall," I thought it referred to Christ, not us because of verses like Gal 3:13 and Gen 3:15? Am I way off base here?

Christiane said...


Maybe the quote means both human-kind AND Christ.
The whole of Isaiah 53 speaks in prophecy of Lord Christ' suffering for our salvation.

Byroniac said...

Thanks, Christiane, that makes sense: though I would guess it still focuses on Christ as our Representative. I liked what you posted before, too, about the hard teaching of responding to rejection, scorn, and persecution. Sometimes I wish Truth were an easier pill to swallow, and I know, because I've fought it myself so many times in life.

Lydia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Strider said...

I have to say that to begin with I can't stop laughing at Kevin's definitions:
Mainstream Baptists = Not Mainstream; Liberal Light.

Baptist Identity = Baptists who can identify others' faults.

Reformed Baptists = Me.

That's really great!

But the reason the tithers are up in arms these days is because they see a real problem but are failing to articulate that problem accurately.
The real problem is that we in the West really are living for ourselves for the most part. Most people I know do not tithe because they wish to spend everything on themselves not because they have found freedom in Christ. We have done the work of the Kingdom in our spare time with our spare resources for a long time. This has not resulted in some violation of law but rather the distancing of ourselves from Christ and the damaging of our love relationship with Him. This is why we are weak and poor.
When we can demonstrate by our actions and our lives that we have sacrificed everything for the Kingdom then the legalists among us will have nothing to accuse us of. When we live in a love relationship with Jesus and lay down everything for Him we will find the riches of the Kingdom- not self-absorbed health and wealth- but the authority to bring the peace of God to our lives, our families, and our communities.

linda said...

Strider, what you say is certainly going to be true for some people.

But not all, certainly not all.

And again, if we want to Biblical about this, "let each be convinced in his own mind" and "who are you to judge another's servant."

We are retired, on a fixed income. We could have lived on less in our former place, and given more to the church. Moving here means higher cost of living,yes, but it also meant being able to care for a grandchild and keep her out of daycare. It has meant giving her a good foundation within the family and seeing her come to faith in Christ at an early age. It has meant living among unsaved neighbors, some of whom we have been able to get into church to hear the gospel.

We've been told we are wrong to "withhold money from God", although we do give fairly generously. But guess what--we are told that by pastors living a much more lavish lifestyle than we are living.

At that point, I think their teaching falls on deaf ears. If they are not willing to live on less and put more to the use of the Kingdom, why should anyone else?

Strider said...

I suppose you are right Linda. There are many legalists who use the law to control others and protect their own interests. Those will never be happy with anything any of us do! Keep serving and keep loving well. We can do no better than this.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Strider: What you say may be true, but the answer is not to preach the law or expect others to live by it just to correct the situation. The answer as I said is to preach more grace and allow the HS to do his work in people's hearts.

I have found the opposite to be true however, I believe Christians to be the most generous people in the world and Katrina, Haiti, etc. are just a couple of outward examples of this. We keep wanting people to give everything, but Linda has actually given a good example. Do we trust the HS to do a work or not? The fact remains that we are no longer under the law and giving in the Bible is more than just money. It includes other things as well from my understanding of scripture.

Debbie Kaufman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Debbie Kaufman said...

Our goal should never be to silence the legalists. We must have the same faith that the HS will teach them as we live and teach the Gospel, that Christ fulfilled the law, we are no longer under the law, we are no longer under the curse of the law.

In fact as we live in freedom from bondage and in what Christ has accomplished, the legalists will be louder. It shows me that the message of Christ is offensive. Hallelujiah.

Anonymous said...


I hope it is just that you and I misunderstand each other and that we really do not view Christianity in such different polar perspectives. Maybe it is because I do not speak Enideese and you, Wade, and Emmanuel do not Mid-Missouri mumble. But the fact remains that I do not consider myself a legalist, and while I do not believe the NT demands a tithe, I am comfortable with churches teaching the benefits of the tithe. Conversely I, being in Christ, do not find Christ offensive, though I admit my flesh at times does--as is the case with us all.

So while we disagree on the use of the law in this age of grace, the rhetoric which we fling at our opponents is not helpful when it demeans them or their view. One only needs to look at the "Together 4 the Gospel" line up to see various views regarding the law, covenants, and eschatology. But they all come together for a greater purpose.

So too could be G&T2U.

Btw, my pastor preached a sermon today which was spectacular, needed for at the very least our congregation at Temple BC, and touched on this very issue. If you listen to it via podcast or watch it via livestream, you should know that I agree with everything he says. You should also know that he believes in a tithe, but does not force the issue, and that his personal theology while not CT lock stock and barrel, is quite reformed. Again, I think we find a view here which espouses the heart of Pauline theology, that is to say salvation by grace alone, while putting the law in its rightful place instead of throwing it away.

Lydia said...

"...while putting the law in its rightful place instead of throwing it away."

Kev, I think that is the confusion. What is the Law's rightful place after the Cross? And now that Gentiles are included?

Which of the over 400 laws in the OC are transferred to the NC? Will you give us a list?

Anonymous said...

Transferred? Why do they have to be transferred? Who chopped off the OT in your BIBLE?!?!

But you may research Wade's blog to find at least 9. And while Hebrews 10 does not exactly add back the 10th, it certainly dictates the principle.

Think post-cross in terms of "Third Temple Judaism (3TR)" (c) 2009 Kevin M. Crowder. All Rights Reserved. There is a 3TR application for every OT law. Grace is the essence of the cross applied to the law.

Today Christ is Prophet (The lawgiver), Priest and King.

What is our job? Properly applied:

-To listen and believe The Prophet

-To confess and repent of our sins to The Priest

-To Worship and Glorify The King

As such, nothing has changed, only the location of the Mercy Seat.

- K

Anonymous said...

EDIT: The essense of Grace is the cross applied to the law.


Byroniac said...

Kevin, did you see my comment and question to you earlier?

Your comment about the Law not being transferred from OC to NC gives me a hint of an answer that I have been looking for. It seems to me that CT holds the Law has never been done away with, right? I am having trouble figuring out why, if the Law hasn't been done away with, that some parts seem to have been amputated for post-Resurrection Gentile consumption, and I am trying to figure out why/how that can be.

What about the Sabbath day? Clothes with multiple types of fabric? What about relational (such as marriage right-of-succession I guess you could call it) laws?

Basically, how does one subdivide the Law and not do violence (amputation) to it?

I do like the idea of a covenant of Grace to redeem all the elect before the foundation of the world.

Aussie John said...


Thank you for an excellent post,thoroughly true to Scripture.

It's terribly sad to know that there are Christians who are inflicted with "prison syndrome", especially those in leadership, who inevitably spread the disease. Such people are simply unable to live in freedom.

Jesus said, "Come to Me!", not, "Come to Moses!"

Lydia said...

"As such, nothing has changed, only the location of the Mercy Seat."

So this would mean I have to be isolated for 14 days if I give birth to a girl?

And what about the dietary laws? Didn't the Lord tell Peter that nothing is unclean? That seemed to change or be cut off. (no pun intended about circumcision which I assume you think is still in effect?)

No wonder you guys need a Talmud with a strict hierarchy to explain how the law is in effect today.

Anonymous said...


I say this with no sarcasm or hidden agenda. Is it possible to carry the spirit of the law into the new covenant and not the letter? Is it also not possible that part of Jesus' teachings were to teach the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter?

Byron asked me a question a couple of times that I have not answered because I have never fully researched the complexities of the answer for which my opinion is based. I find it perfectly acceptable to place the laws into categories based on their intended purpose. Some laws were physically fulfilled in the cross and resurrection and therefore is would be foolish to observe them(day of atonement, scapegoat, blood sacrifices, etc.). Others cannot be carried out literally for there is no physical temple but rather can be applied spiritually to the heart.

I do not see any inherent conflict with this view and Wade's NC teachings. Only that both sides are coming at the cross from different angles, blinded by nothing more than a fear of "connecting the threads."


Lydia said...

"I say this with no sarcasm or hidden agenda. Is it possible to carry the spirit of the law into the new covenant and not the letter? Is it also not possible that part of Jesus' teachings were to teach the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter?"

Then what is the Holy Spirit for? Isn't the whole point an INTERNAL transformation? This is the Holy Spirit indwelling in us if we are truly saved.

(I am becoming increasingly concerned about the lack of focus on the Holy Spirit indwelling in believers by our teachers)

And yes, I believe that Jesus was pointing out the spirit of the law to those who had followed the Pharisees teaching. But, I do not see how this would apply to the Gentiles. Funny how there were so many that wanted the Gentiles to follow certain laws in order to be considered Christians! That is what you seem to be advocating.

Thank God He sent the Holy Spirit to guide us! But that does not mean sin is dumbed down. In fact, Jesus Christ raised the bar. Instead of actual murder, now it is hate in the heart is murder. Instead of 'tithing' it is sell your posessions and help your brother in need.

Tom Parker said...


Who is dumbing down sin?

Lydia said...

Who is dumbing down sin?

Tue Feb 09, 12:44:00 PM 2010

Me, for one.

Tom Parker said...



Lydia said...



Tue Feb 09, 02:54:00 PM 2010

Because it is what has been taught in both word and deed for so long it has become part of what we think is the Gospel. We think forgiveness makes our sin no big deal. And we think subconsciously
that forgiveness covers all future sin. We tend to see Grace as a license even though we protest that we don't. Our deeds give us away.

(I am using the Royal 'we')

As I read on a blog a while back, we do not want to be saved from sinning, we want to be saved from the PENALTY of sinning. That is so true of the Western Church.

But that is not how salvation works.

That is a soundbite answer to a very serious subject. One that I have been studying with fear and trembling. I believe that if we are truly saved, we grow in Holiness. It might be slow but He who begins a good work finishes it. And scripture tells us that without Holiness, we will not see God.

Personally, I believe the SBC is spiritually dead. I also believe most of our churches are spiritually dead. They are business enterprises or social clubs. We think more of what the leaders think that what Jesus Christ thinks.

I have said before that sanctification will look like the death to the worldly. Like you are a big loser. Christians will tell you that you must have some sin in your life to cause such adversity. (They never read Job?)

It would never occur to them that God WILL smash our idols if we belong to Him. He WILL refine us if we belong to Him

He WILL take out our hearts of stone and replace them with hearts of flesh.

How contradictory that we find real Joy in such a thing! That is why we are peculiar people. :o)

But we cannot continually practice willfull consistent sin for years and claim to be His. We do not have to sin to keep correct doctrine and we cannot ignore the truth about what the Word says about salvatoin and Jesus Christ being the only way.

We couldn't continue in willful continual sin because the godly sorrow would be too great. I find that scary for myself.

Tom Parker said...


Thanks so much for your last comment. I agree that I don't take sin seriously enough.

Anonymous said...

I am a little surprised at some of your recent comments this the same louis that has commented on hear in the past?

Robert I masters
from the Southern Baptist Geneva

Tim Marsh said...

"As I read on a blog a while back, we do not want to be saved from sinning, we want to be saved from the PENALTY of sinning. That is so true of the Western Church.

But that is not how salvation works."

Amen, Lydia! One of the fallacies of Christian theology since Constantine.

We are being transformed, not merely forgiven!