Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Don't Make Me Come Over There Mark Driscoll!!!

I don't know why, I don't know why we do it. Why were we watching youtube clips of Mark Driscoll last night? It's Aaron's fault. Ok, so not all of his stuff is bad, in fact, he's actually pretty good if you can block your mind (or in my case mouth) from screaming "hypocrite"! Hypocrite because in one segment he preaches grace and the gospel, in the next he's busy telling people what is allowed or not, even in the bedroom. Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate his willingness to be real and talk about sex so openly, just don't necessarily agree with the reason why he's doing it. He's preaching from the wrong tree, and it's not his job or any other pastor's job to teach us from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Right?

Anyway, as angry as this man can make me (and you'll see what I mean in a minute) I still can't help hoping and praying he'll wake up one day and the veil that covers his face because of sitting under and perpetuating the false doctrine that we are as believers still under Law, will fall away and he will see Jesus clearly in all his New Covenant glory! And worse than angry, what follows makes me extremely sad.

If you still struggle with condemnation and especially in the area of sexual sin then I don't recommend you watch this at all. Aaron and I both felt the sickening evil spell of condemnation as we watched even though the 'rebuke' had nothing to do with either of us! One thing I truly appreciate about Mark is there is no subtlety, he is what he is. I much prefer this to the forked tongued flattery that often clouds the ministry of death and condemnation other preachers are peddling...

So here goes, (and Mark D., if you should ever happen to stumble across this post, I sincerely want you to know that my purpose is not to offend or insult you personally, but you (in this clip at least) have crossed the line when you speak to the Bride of Christ in such a terrible and accusatory manner. This is exactly the kind of teaching that puts people in bondage to sin. In fact, if what you say is true and there are many men in your church who have been there for years and are still entangled in such sin, then maybe you should examine the doctrines that are producing such bad fruit. MAYBE the message matters! MAYBE we should be careful what we preach! You can never never guilt, shame, scare people into becoming righteous, because righteousness is a gift from God by faith. Shame on YOU, for shaming those who don't live up to your self-righteous standards. Shame on YOU for misrepresenting our Father who has promised to never ever be angry or rebuke us again. If he is not angry, he is not rebuking us, what gives YOU the right? Please feel free to contact me with your answers in the unlikely event you ever read this.)

Ahem.






If anyone reading this sits or has sat under this kind of teaching then I am very sorry. I have been there, though Mark is an extreme version. These kinds of lies about who God is and how he sees you cut to your heart and fill you with despair. But there is good news! God is not angry with you, he's not counting your sins against you, there is freedom and joy in the Spirit when you believe in Jesus and his work on the cross! ALL your sin has been dealt with and whether you succumb to temptation in this world or not God will not put you to shame, there is no condemnation for you ever! So come and let Jesus give you rest, his burden is easy, his yoke is light.

45 comments:

jul said...

Oooh, forgot about the communion part, can't take it!

SLW said...

Honestly, I would walk out on that guy, noisily, clumsily, gathering up all the family, coughing, loud footfalls the whole way out. He treats the body scandalously, imo. Apparently, there's a lot out there that find help in what he says. I don't get it, but I suppose there's no accounting for taste.

S.L.P said...

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen that side of him before. I couldn't watch the whole thing. Here's the question that I've been asking having come out from under legalism: Where's the balance?

so-unbelievably-heartbroken said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dan Bowen said...

Don't get me even started on Mark Driscoll ....

Women are NOT sexual playthings for their husbands every whim. They are to be loved as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her.

And to have a little man like this come along and swagger around a stage making men everywhere laugh - well ... its enough to make me want to become egalitarian ... ;-)

Nicely said Julie.

Phil said...

I haven't watched the video...thought I'd better not when I'm not as established as some of you folks in grace and feel a lot of pressure on me anyway. I can appreciate what You and Dan said though, Jul.

I don't want to stick my nose into private matters between those in the know, but Keith please could you write your comments to Jul and Aaron privately? For their sake, yours, and particularly Lydia's. Please protect her from any wrong judgments and pain that might arise from your publicizing your grievances and judgments here.

jul said...

Hi Keith, out of respect for everyone involved as well as for other readers who feel uncomfortable, I'm removing your comment but will save it and respond to you via e-mail. Also, if you really want to talk to Aaron I'll let him know and he can give you a call.

Phil, I think it's probably a wise decision not to watch, still questioning why I put it up but I think there may be a reason...

jul said...

Hi S.L.P. thanks for your comment! I think to answer your question about balance I'd have to know what you're wanting balance in. The understanding of legalism is so confused in most of the church that most people think they are supposed to have a little legalism in their lives. But Jesus said that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. I don't want balance if it means some grace, some law--some life, some death--some truth, some poison. I'm ok with being completely and extemely free!

Legalism is bringing in any amount of law, even if it's "Biblical". It's NOT just seeing law as a means of justification, but seeing law as having anything to do whatsoever with our righteousness, including any role in sanctification. The age-old Galatian problem. True grace needs no balance, needs no qualifier. You can't have too much of Jesus!

I don't know if that helps you or not, feel free to explain more or be more specific and I'll try to help if I can or point you in the direction of some good teaching or applicable Scripture.

jul said...

SLW, I would consider your reaction too polite haha. I don't go to churches like this because I would be so tempted to get up and start shouting the gospel. I can't stand to think of all God's children sitting under that, in bondage, NEEDLESSLY in bondage. I was telling Aaron last night there was a time I would have loved this clip, I was so desperate for freedom in our lives that I would have welcomed this outrageous rebuke. I put my hope for freedom from sin in us experiencing enough fear, shame, and guilt to motivate us to change. An unfounded hope, it never ever worked of course. Freedom comes in believing there is "no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus"!

jul said...

Dan, thanks for dropping in! Sorry to put this guy back on your radar, but it just struck me how many people are believing this stuff and blaming themselves not understanding why they are still in bondage to so much sin. They try and try to stop and be good little church people and obey their pastor but they find it's impossible. Stuck in end of Romans 7, might as well be stuck in hell. Who can set us free from this body of death???? THANKS BE TO GOD THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD!!!!!!! All you people, READ ROMANS 8!

Jon Sidnell said...

Hmm, just hmmm.

So many things wrong with that. The anger from the pulpit that you never see replicated in the New Testament apart from where Jesus is confronting religious hypocrites who block God off from the "sinners". The comments about not being able to take communion is completely wrong when context is brought in to play.

It really is just the same old mixture of law and grace, but taken to logical conclusion.

I just can't help wondering how Driscoll would re-write 1 Corinthians because Paul never talked to them with that amount of anger, wrath and vitriol. He affirmed them in Christ before saying "Why are you playing with that other stuff? Prostitutes, inter-familial sex, drunkenness, partisan-ship. You're better than that now you're in Christ!"

Totally needs to have the veil removed and then he can gloriously see all these people's lives change through grace and abiding in Christ, rather than legalism and shouting that has no power to subdue the flesh.

jul said...

So well-said Jon! So I suppose since shouting has no power to subdue the flesh then I shouldn't go over there and beat him up a little? But seriously, I really do hope he just gets revelation of this glorious gospel of grace! That's where the true power is, then all this macho manly sham he's got going on can just fall off nicely.

Phil said...

Okay out of curiosity I watched the first couple of minutes up to "that's the Holy Spirit..."...What was the name of the American footballer who did those adverts where he'd run down corriders and take out unsuspecting people?...I can just imagine him running on and flattening Mark "bam!" just as he obliquely boasts about his masculinity

lydia said...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

THAT WAS PURE HELL!!! I wonder if he felt led to condemn everyone else cause he lives in his own condemnation regarding this issue!!!! You were right Jul, that did make me MAD!!!!!!!! He has no right to speak to the bride of Christ like that!!!!!!!!! And then say it's the Holy Spirit - aaaahh!!!!

Jon Sidnell said...

I don't know, Jul, I figure that someone living under the law needs to be shown the full horror of living under the law, so maybe a good smack-down is what's needed to remove the self-righteousness in this area of life ;)

And Lydia, I reckon that it's probably more likely that he's yelling because he's frustrated that people haven't got it together yet. Little does he realise that simply yelling and holding up moral codes isn't enough to bring the change he wants to see - only Jesus can do it by grace in a man's life.

so-unbelievably-heartbroken said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jamie said...

I'm sorry but I don't do that screaming like a drill sergeant bit so I didn't get past a minute something. I take it that he, like the Law, placed US right in the spotlight, not Christ? When the woman caught in adultery was thrown "in the midst", I don't recall Jesus condemning her. I might need to reread that, but I think I remember it fairly accurately. Ironically, the One Without Sin graced her while this guy seems to think he's justified in throwing rocks. This gives new meaning to "feed my sheep", that's for sure! Help, help! The shepherd is beating the hell out of me!!!

I think we can take him, Jul.

so-unbelievably-heartbroken said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jamie said...

Oh, BTW, have I told you lately that I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE you and your husband?

jul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jul said...

Oh Jamie, you mean you're still going to read my blog? I didn't want to lose you!

jul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Fincher said...

I've heard of him, but this is the first time I've ever heard him speak.

It was truly awful, but I sensed a little contrivance in it. It just seemed like a manufactured anger to me. Also, is spousal abuse THAT prevalent in his church? Hmmmm...

If it is, instead of using a shotgun approach that makes even the innocent squirm, why not confront them personally. I despise this management style.

And it would P**S me off to be yelled at like that. I don't do good with in-your-face accusations. I may just push back...

Thanks for your spirit Jul! :)

Jon Sidnell said...

John, there will have been contrivance there. The way Driscoll's church works, this recording will probably be the 5th or 6th time he's preached this message.

Which of course means yelling is probably a pre-meditated preaching tactic that he's decided will be effective.

Ho hum :(

andreascucca said...

Im sick!! He is not a gracepreacher. I always felt there was something hard in his preaching even as he taught grace. No I see it clearly, he doesnt get it. I just saw a video were he preaches that we are sinners.

About the communion thats just sick.

silent wings said...

ok. YUUUCK. That was all wrong in so many ways. I am speechless.


BTW, I love this:

"Legalism is bringing in any amount of law, even if it's "Biblical". It's NOT just seeing law as a means of justification, but seeing law as having anything to do whatsoever with our righteousness, including any role in sanctification. The age-old Galatian problem. True grace needs no balance, needs no qualifier. You can't have too much of Jesus!"

The Lewis Family said...

Wow. . . Brutal. Interesting that he was yelling at the men for the way they were treating their 'brides' etc. Umm, what's the difference? He is yelling at the bride of Christ about treating their bride so badly. Oooh the irony. It was like he was yelling at himself.

I feel rather sobered after watching that. He sure had some passion there eh. Freaky. I can understand feeling for those who have been abused and used, but methinks fighting fire with fire just makes a bigger fire. . .

Grieved. That's the word. So sad. Passion sure can be deceptive. Whip em into submission instead of allowing them to be compelled by love. Golly! Frankly I HATE it when my husband does something for me out of obligation. It is the worst feeling. It is empty, void, and relationship killing.

Love. Can't be forced. If that was the case. . .

Charles said...

Mark Driscoll does not preach legalism nor does he preach the law. His teaching on "grace" is doctrinally sound, and is very biblical. He does get emotional at times, but this is not an accurate depiction of a regular church service. Many of you are condemning the the whole law with broad brush strokes. The law itself as was given to Moses was not sinful or bad altogether. That's why 9 out of the ten commandments are mentioned again in the New Testament (only one left out, but clarified by Paul is the Sabbath). As a matter of fact, in Galatians Paul tells us that the law was given as a tutor, although a tutor is no longer necessary under the new covenant.
Legalism however, is not defined by the old Mosaic law that you are referring too. There are many revelations that God spoke to his prophets in the Old Testament that are still meant for us to live by today (Jeremiah, Leviticus, Deuteronony, Lamentations, Psalms, Ecclesiastes). Just because they are in the Old Testament and revealed under the old law does not negate the fact that they are still standards by which we can live by today. Legalism, more accurately, is creating commandments outside of scripture and placing burdens on people that they were never meant to carry. Like the 700 + Mosaic Laws that were separate from scripture. In Galatians, Paul is trying to undo the damage done by people in Judea who were preaching that salvation was not possible without circumcision. That's legalism! Here's another example: Bertie Brits stating that salvation does not come as a result of believing in faith that Jesus is the son of God or that he was resurrected on the 3rd day. But, instead by what Christ's finished work on the cross implies??? Huh, what does that mean anyway? Has he read Romans 10:9-10? As "free", deep, and ethereal as that sounds, what he's preaching is modern day legalism! Because the word of God does not tell us that circumcision is a requirement for salvation, nor does it tells that we have to figure out some "deep" implication to his death on the cross.

Charles said...

Preaching the gospel to people in a bold manner like Steven did (calling people stiff-necked and pointing out their sin) in Acts prior to his death is not legalistic. That's proclaiming the gospel boldly. John the baptist referred to the Parisees and Saducees as a brood of vipers. Paul in Corinthians sternly lectures the church on it's abuse and misuse of the gifts of the spirit. Wasn't he being too picky and legal about it? Shouldn't he have just let it go, knowing that there sins were covered by Christ's death??? Was that being too harsh or legalistic? Let's face it sometimes the gospel is offensive, to believers and non-believers alike. It's sad IMHO that people have strayed from TEACHING the bible in church (Old and New NT). It leads to all types of confusion and misunderstandings. Believe me, I know exactly where many of you are coming from. I sat under similar preaching for many years until I realized that alot of what I was hearing was not biblical at all. The type of "freedom/grace" that you're referring to sounds great, but it has to be balanced with he word of God. For instance, in Matthew 12:36 Jesus tells us that for every idle or careless word that men speak they will have to give an account for it on the day of judgment. Based on your definition of "legalism" - isn't Jesus being a bit legalistic there? See, you have to be careful with freedom, in the name of Grace. God is a loving God, but Jesus (as appointed by God according to scripture) will one day judge men's deeds. Is that a works based, legalistic view? Absolutely not. That's a loving Father that wants his children to obedient. Do we perform deeds or works only to be righteous in the eyes of God. Absolutely not. We do it because we love him so much. This is more in line with the balance that one poster was referring to. God bless you all, and please don't take offense. I would love to hear some feedback.

John Fincher said...

Mark Driscoll is not Stephen, nor is he John the Baptist, nor is he Paul, nor was he preaching the Gospel.

IF he has evidence of abuse among members of his members, he should deal with it on a case-by-case basis - NOT heap condemnation onto the entire congregation.

Perhaps it's easier to just rail against it from the pulpit, rather than confront it personally.

Charles said...

Mark is not Stephen, Paul, or John the Baptist, you're right, but neither were Billy Graham or Charles Spurgeon. I'm not quite sure what you really mean by that statement? However, all of them were known at some point for delivering fiery sermons. A loving Shepherd steers the flock. No different than how a loving father corrects his children. Spiritual authority is biblical, however it can become abusive if not done in love. We can agree there. I have also been in charasmatic/spirit-filled environments where reprimand may not be common, but pressure to elevate worship to "another level" or guilting people into understanding and fully embracing some "deeper" teaching (whatever than means??) crosses the line. Legalism is not confined to what you or others may deem as "fundamentalism" or strict conformance to scripture. Even grace teaching can cross over into legalism when it extends beyond scripture.

jul said...

Hi Charles, thanks for your comments. I especially appreciate your respectful tone though you disagree.

I suspect we have different definitions of legalism, which may be one of the problems. Would you mind sharing your definition? Then I'll share mine and maybe help you see where I'm coming from.

By the way,I agree with you that Mark does preach the gospel of grace very well sometimes. I actually enjoy listening to him when he's talking about grace, even though I absolutely detest some of his other teachings (on men and women for example).

Look forward to reading your response!

Charles said...

jul,
First off let me state that I've heard the word "legalism, used in many different contexts. When I say contexts, I mean in different church environments, ranging from what I'll respectfully refer to as Charasmatic/Non-denominational/Spirit-Filled to Hard-Line Baptist Calvanists. That covers quite a wide spectrum. LOL. Charasmatics, (and yes, I'm generalizing) tend to define legalism in a very casual manner. The most common definition that I'm aware of would be: Crossing over from love into following the letter of the law, and more specifically using the law to condemn or judge rather than to love people. Understand that this type of church environment that I grew up in, so I have my roots firmly established in their focus on love, freedom, the gifts of the spirit. So, I have a great amount of respect for the principles that they stand for. However, I believe their definition of legalism falls short of the picture that the Word of God paints. I think what they are referring to is judgment. They are right in that the bible tells us not to judge one another. However, we are called to challenge one another in our walks, hold one another accountable, rebuke sin when we see it and not be afraid to call it sin. This type of talk or jargon has become like noise in the ears of the modern day charismatic. They are so afraid of the “legalism” label that they forgo the authority of scripture in the name of love. I blame the lack of biblical teaching on this problem. As a result, their version of freedom many times becomes personal freedom rather than true freedom, which is freedom in Christ. True freedom comes from abiding in his Word, not from feeling free from sin, rebuke, trials, being prosperous, healthy, wealthy etc. I’m not saying that we can’t have all of these things either, but let’s not put the cart before the horse. Unfortunately, gnosticism, special/personal revelation and many other problematic theologies have become commonplace in many Charasmatic circles to the exclusion of scripture. It's unfortunate, because they have so many other things right and balanced that many true legalists really lack. If the bible was held in higher authority and taught from more often as opposed to topical teaching, people would be confronted with scriptures such as the one’s below that challenge us in ways beyond the narrow confines of personal growth.
Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. James 5:20
He who listens to a life-giving rebuke will be at home among the wise. Proverbs 15:31
So watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. Luke 17:3
That being said, we teeter on a fine line. Jesus and James both point out that we should be careful about rebuking one another when we have a log in our own eye. This is why it always needs to be done in love.

Charles said...

Wow, I’ve already said too much so let me make this one short. Sorry, but I love discussing these kinds of topics ;-)
Legalism, as it’s defined by those who¬¬ tend to hold scripture in higher authority (please do not take offense to this statement, because I will explain it later) is defined as: Creating laws, rules, and other decrees that are separate from the mandates of scripture and enforcing them. As I mentioned in a past post, Galatians is a great example of this. The people in Judea were telling people that they couldn’t receive salvation if they were not circumcised. That is legalism. Let’s put it in a modern day context…..
Women should not wear lipstick or pants. Men should never wear a hat inside of church. People should never dress casually in a church sanctuary. We should only ever take communion with real wine, because that’s what Jesus did with his disciples. Drums should not be allowed during worship. Clergy should always wear a robe in the pulpit. Christian rap and rock music is ungodly and should not be listened to by Christians. Let’s go a little deeper into theology within the church………
The evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is only by speaking in tongues. At the very extreme, only Calvinists can go to heaven – laughable, and ridiculous, but there are people who believe that. Once we’re saved we’re always saved. See, I just offended somebody! LOL
Any of the above issues applied to our walk in a dogmatic or close-handed way cross over quickly into legalism. We should able to at least agree to disagree on all of the above, because none of these are essentials or close-handed issues that directly affect our salvation. If one feels compelled in one way or another they should follow their convictions and not allow themselves to stumble as a result. So, if you prefer that preachers wear a robe, then find a church that practices that tradition, but don’t claim that others are less spiritual because they don’t care one way or the other. That would be legalistic.
Hopefully none of this comes off as a matter-of-fact or arrogant. There are so many things that I still have to learn on my journey and ¬¬I would ask that God would allow my heart to be conformed to his image, even if means changing my mind. ¬¬That’s why I would not be so fast to write off Driscoll and Piper simply as legalists. Either we are all brothers/sisters in Christ. I may disagree with some of Bertie Brit, Joel Osteen, Miles Munroe teachings, and actually think some of it is false teaching or at best not biblical, but I still respect them all as a brother in Christ. Sorry, I never explained the “holding scripture in higher authority part”, but I’ve already said way too much! God bless you jul, and I look forward to hearing back from you.

Charles said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles said...

Wow, I’ve already said too much so let me make this one short. Sorry, but I love discussing these kinds of topics ;-)
Legalism, as it’s defined by those who¬¬ tend to hold scripture in higher authority (Baptists, Presbyterians, and some Charasmatic/non-denominational/expository preaching types of churches - please do not take offense to this statement, because I will explain it later) is defined as: Creating laws, rules, and other decrees that are separate from the mandates of scripture and enforcing them. As I mentioned in a past post, Galatians is a great example of this. The people in Judea were telling people that they couldn’t receive salvation if they were not circumcised. That is legalism. Let’s put it in a modern day context…..
Women should not wear lipstick or pants. People should never dress casually in a church sanctuary. We should only ever take communion with real wine, because that’s what Jesus did with his disciples. Drums should not be allowed during worship. Clergy should always wear a robe in the pulpit. Christian rap and rock music is ungodly and should not be listened to by Christians. Let’s go a little deeper into theology within the church………
The evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is only by speaking in tongues. At the very extreme, only Calvinists can go to heaven – laughable, and ridiculous, but there are people who believe that. Another one, the dogmatic - “Once saved always saved”. See, I just offended somebody! LOL

Charles said...

Any of the above issues applied to our walk in a dogmatic or close-handed way cross over quickly into legalism. We should able to at least agree to disagree on all of the above, because none of these are essentials or close-handed issues that directly affect our salvation. If one feels compelled in one way or another they should follow their convictions and not allow themselves to stumble as a result. So, if you prefer that preachers wear a robe, then find a church that practices that tradition, but don’t claim that others are less spiritual because they don’t care one way or the other. That would be legalistic.
Hopefully none of this comes off as a matter-of-fact or arrogant. There are so many things that I still have to learn on my journey and ¬¬I would ask that God would allow my heart to be conformed to his image, even if means changing my mind. ¬¬That’s why I would not be so fast to write off Driscoll and Piper simply as legalists. Either we are all brothers/sisters in Christ. I may disagree with some of Bertie Brit, Joel Osteen, Miles Munroe teachings, and actually think some of it is false teaching or at best not biblical, but I still respect them all as a brother in Christ. Sorry, I never explained the “holding scripture in higher authority part”, but I’ve already said way too much! God bless you jul, and I look forward to hearing back from you.

jul said...

hi Charles, blogger must have done something weird with your comments, maybe you could remove some of the ones that seem to be duplicates, I don't want to remove the wrong one. I've read them all though lol!

Anyway, I will assume you're not very familiar with Bertie since you lumped him in with Joel Osteen, another law preacher ( I call it candy coated law). I don't know who the other guy is, but all of the grace preachers I listen to, including Bertie, are able to teach Scripture more soundly and with more understanding than any preachers I've ever heard, and I've heard MANY (that includes Piper and tons of other reform guys and many before that in my church upbringing and Bible college days). Everything I believe about the gospel is a result of much study, prayer, and often wrestling and though I'm not offended it's somewhat confusing to me that everyone who ever disagrees with what I believe seems to assume I just don't put much weight on the Bible. It's exactly because I value the Bible so highly that I have changed my doctrine to agree more with how I understand what I've read.

I can give you Scripture after Scripture supporting clearly what I believe, namely that the gospel is only ever good news, that God is not counting men's sins against them, he is no longer angry with us, there is no more condemnation ever, we are not in any way under any part of the Law of Moses, including the ten commandments, etc, etc... Legalism is when we try to put believers under obligation to any part of the law for any reason at all. Jesus is enough for us, we don't need the law. We are truly free from the written codes, Christ is the end of the law for all who believe.

What is freedom? Does it mean freedom to sin? Well, that doesn't even make sense. Our bondage was to sin in the first place, and our freedom is freedom from sin. Sin shall no longer be our master because we are not under law but grace! So living under law never brings freedom but bondage to sin. The law can only speak death and minister condemnation to us.

The law is good if used lawfully, for the unjust not the just. We are the just, we who are in Jesus. (1 timothy 1 I believe)

Anyway, if you want lots of references for the things I wrote off the top of my head let me know and I can figure it out for you.

There is much much more. That's just a little sampling.

As for using Jesus' law teaching for a basis to put believers under law, that's not good interpretation. Jesus was teaching old covenant, not new, at least much of the time. Check out his parables for revelation of the new, or how he personally dealt with 'sinners'.

I do agree with you that grace is not always fluffy, there are times to confront sin. But how do we do that and why? I don't want to see people in chains,I want to see them free. When I see them chained up in sin, I know that the root is always unbelief. Unbelief in God's goodness, his love, the gospel itself really. They think they need to deal with their own sin, they don't believe Jesus finished that work on the cross. Just give people a steady diet of the gospel of grace and you will see freedom start to reign in their lives. Not to mention love, peace, joy, faithfulness, goodness, gentleness, self-control, etc...

I'm just rambling on here! Anyway, I like discussing these things too and am very difficult to offend so no worries at all. Hopefully I don't offend you either!

jul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles said...

jul,
I definitely see where you are coming from and agree with much of what you are saying. However, we'll have to agree to disagree on what you see as the law. I understand the difference between Mosaic Law and the law given to Moses. For certain, I don't believe that we are accountable to anything under the Mosaic Law. However, there is a good bit of overlap between much of what God shared with men in the OT and the NT. As I stated earlier, 9 out of 10 commandments are mentioned again in the NT. How do you explain this? Also, what's your scriptural rationale for stating that Christ was teaching the law? Why would God send his Son to establish a new covenant, but have him preach the old covenant with the exception of parables? Why did Christ himself say that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill them?
Matthew 5:17-20

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
How do you deal with scripture like these? Of course I’m sure we could go on forever on this topic. However, unless we could agree on what you mean by the law, we would have trouble creating a firm footing for further discussion. For instance, is this the the law, and do these commandments still hold true today?
COLOSSIANS 3:20 NKJ
20 Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord.
EPHESIANS 6:1-3 NKJ
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.
2 "Honor your father and mother," which is the first commandment with promise:
3 "that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth."
1 TIMOTHY 3:4 NKJ
4 . . . having his children in submission with all reverence
Children should submit to their parents and show them respect.
Even if your parents do not serve God, you still must respect and obey them. However, God does not expect you to obey them when they tell you to sin by doing wrong things. (see Acts 5:29)
The LAW:
Exodus 20:12 - “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.”
Here we have a law from the OT and it’s repeated in multiple places in the NT. How do you grapple with that? Of course we no longer have to sacrifice animals for our forgiveness, but will we not be held accountable on judgment day for our deeds? Was Paul preaching the law in Romans?
New Testament:
(Romans 12:19). God will judge each and every human being for the good and bad they do.
Old Testament:
Ecclesistaes 12:14
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.

Charles said...

I’ll just finish with this final thought. I love the doctrine of grace, and am totally on-board with the idea that there is nothing we can do (in terms of deeds/works) to receive his grace. It’s a gift. Understood. However, this does not gives us so much flexibility that we can no longer sin in the eyes of God. I am very familiar with the “We’re no longer sinner’s doctrine” that I’m guessing you may believe in. Please correct if I’m wrong. I have never been able to find scriptural evidence for why people believe that. I understand that as Christians we no longer make a practice of sin, but that does not remove the fact that we are still fallen man, since Adam and Eve first sinned. In addition in the NT 1 John 1 says:
5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all[b] sin.
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.
In other words, even if all of our sins are covered by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, we still have our sinful nature (1 John 1:8). Anyone who claims to be without sin, is a liar according to 1 John1. The bible is very clear in the Old and New Testament after the death of Christ that people sin even after receiving Christ into their life. Paul says that he struggles to do what is right even though he knows better. Paul writes letters to the very imperfect church, but full of believers in Corinth. In Revelation, God spits out the church of Laodecia because he says they are lukewarm. Why?

Terri Scully said...

Can someone please answer to Pauls last post. I really need answers. TY

jul said...

Paul's last post? I'm not sure what you mean. If you can clarify I'll try to help you out ��