Don Smith
Introduction
In the previous section of this writer’s reply to Mrs. Julie Jackson (found in TGP, Oct. 2023), a refutation was made regarding experiences being authoritative. It was shown to Mrs. Jackson that, in essence, she was attempting to trump the Word of God by her experiences. The section on the religious position of this writer gave further guidance to rely on the teaching of the Bible, as Christianity is a taught religion from the text. Next, however, we will be moving into legalism and law. As most denominationalists do, Mrs. Jackson apparently had an issue with being too technical and analytical with study of the Word. This section should soundly put such arguments to rest.
Concerning Legalism/Law
(15)
1Legalism is basically a strict study and teaching of, and compliance to, a law. 2Our current discussion pertains to the law of God. 3In TGP [July 2023, pg. 32] paragraph 6 and [Aug. 2023, pg. 19] paragraph 12, you used the term “legalism” in a negative fashion. 4Sometimes people do this because they don’t believe God has a law that He requires us to strictly obey today. 5Common motives for this are a person’s unwillingness to conform their lives in any sacrificial manner to such a law, and also a person’s unwillingness to acknowledge that their friends and family may not be on the path of God, and some may have even died in that condition. 6It takes great strength to overcome such situations – but overcome them we must if heaven is to be our home (Matt. 10:34-37).
(16)
1Another motive for denying God’s law is, after having put a significant amount of time into a particular religious belief system, it would be an embarrassment to have to admit that all that time spent was in the wrong way – this is pride (too proud to go through possible embarrassment). 2Akin to this motive is the feeling of discouragement that all of the years spent were a waste of time. 3I don’t claim to know your motive; that’s something you must determine for yourself. 4Still, I must remind you that you did specifically state twice that you had been in your system of belief for over 30 years (TGP [Aug. 2023, pg. 18] paragraph 7, sentence 2 and [Sept. 2023, pg. 21] paragraph 16, sentence 1), and you even implied that it would be an absurdity for you to have been wrong for 30 years (paragraph 16). 5I want you to know that there is no shame in turning back from something false. 6If at the end of our studies you were to recant your religious position and you are obedient to the Word and Will of God as I am setting forth that the Bible declares, you will be received with joy and open arms by the faithful – please know this. 7We will not embarrass you, but rather commend you on your courage in converting. 8I also want you to know that the years you spent prior to this will not have been a waste, as you have acquired a great familiarity of the scriptures, and upon being properly taught, you will be ready much more quickly to teach in accordance with God’s Will.
(17)
1There are many people who have been walking in error by their systems of faith many more years than you have. 2Many Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, etc. would claim the same line of reasoning you did concerning the length of time they’ve been in their faith. 3This certainly doesn’t make what they do sanctioned by God. 4We have examples of change at great ages. 5At the age of 80, Moses was called by God to give up the life he had walked in for 40 years in order to lead Israel out of Egypt (Acts 7:29-30). 6Joshua was 80 years old when he had to lead the people out of the wilderness and into the land of Canaan for battle. 7Caleb was 85 years old when he took Hebron (Josh. 14:6-12). 8No matter how much of a change is needed, and no matter how old we are or how long we’ve been in a certain practice, when it comes to the difference between heaven and hell, it is certainly worth the change, and it is certainly within the means of the capability of anyone.
(18)
1In TGP, [Aug. 2023, pg. 19] paragraph 12, sentence 2, you were specific on the idea that we need to avoid all “this” man-made legalism. 2”This” must refer to the church of Christ being the one and only church that belongs to Christ, and the other materials written by her members. 3I want you to know that I am not offended by this. 4This is a learning process and requires patience from all parties involved.
(19)
1Let us begin with whether or not God has a law for us today. 2This is actually really easy to understand. 3Transgression is violation of law. 41 John 3:4 tells us that sin is transgression of the law, sin being equated with violating God’s law. 5Romans 4:15 states that where no law is, there is no transgression – meaning there is no sin. 6If God didn’t have a law today, it would be impossible for men to transgress it (to sin) – therefore everyone would be saved. 7However, we know this is not the case, for very few will find the strait and narrow way (Matt. 7:13-14), and even scarcely will the righteous be saved (1 Pet. 4:18). 8So we know that God certainly has a law for us today and has always had a law.
(20)
1There are 3 dispensations that have had their respective periods throughout all of time. 2A dispensation is a law of government given at a certain period of time. 3The first dispensation was, what has been termed, the Patriarchal dispensation. 4This was a government of laws that were given to individuals and nations, some being specific to only certain people. 5These were not written laws but spoken directly from God to the people. 6This dispensation began with Adam and Eve and extended to Moses and the giving of the laws on Mount Sinai. 7When the laws on Mount Sinai were given, this started a new dispensation, which has been termed the Mosaical dispensation. 8It was the first time any written law had been given from God, and this law was particular to the nation of Israel. 9However, all other nations continued under the Patriarchal dispensation running parallel in time with the Mosaical dispensation. 10We see this with various gentile nations having sinned and broken a law of God, and God rebuking them. 11An example is the gentile city of Ninevah to whom God sent Jonah to preach to, that they might turn from their wickedness (Jon. 1:2; 3:2, 10). 12Their “wickedness” implies they had sinned against God (broken His law). 13Therefore, gentiles had laws of God to abide by, and Israel had the written law of Moses from God to abide by. 14The Patriarchal dispensation and the Mosaical dispensation ran parallel till the cross, at which time the final dispensation began, termed the Christian dispensation, hence, the last days (Heb. 1:1-2). 15This is the governing body of laws that will continue until the end of time, whereas the Patriarchal and Mosaical dispensations ended in the first century (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14; Heb. 8:6-7; 9:15-17).
(21)
1That there is a governing body of laws for us today is evident all throughout the New Testament. 2Paul differentiated between two laws (the law of Moses and the law of Christ) specifically referring to the law we are under today in 1 Cor. 9:20-21. 3He does so again in Romans 8:2. 4In Galatians 6:2, he mentions the law of Christ. 5He even states directly that he was writing the commandments of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37). 6In fact, the entire Bible is a legal document; just look at the legal terminology used, such as law, will, testament, commandment, covenant, iniquity (lawlessness), judgment, etc. 7The law of Christ is also known by other phrases, such as the new testament (Heb. 9:15), the new covenant (Heb. 8:8), the law of liberty (James 1:25), the royal law (James 2:8), the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11), the faith (Jude 3), etc. 8Being familiar with the different governing bodies of law throughout time is absolutely essential to our understanding of Paul’s writings, and others, that pertain to law.
(22)
1Now, you’ve cited and quoted Paul several times when speaking of legalism and law. 2These particular passages are in reference to the law of Moses having ended, not the law of Christ. 3So let’s briefly go over them. 4The Romans 8:3-4 passage that you quoted in TGP [July 2023, pg. 32] paragraph 6, sentence 6 should be easily understood at this point, especially in the light of its context. 5In verse 2, Paul says, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” 6Clearly, 2 laws are being spoken of here. 7Only the law of the Spirit can save us. 8The law of sin and death is a reference to the law of Moses. 9To be sure of this, we back up to chapter 7 of the context, where, in verse 4 it says we are dead to the law. 10Okay, so what law is that? 11Verse 7 says it’s the law that states, “Thou shalt not covet.” 12The law that states this is the 10 commandments – the core of the law of Moses. 13So the law that was referred to as weak in 8:3 is the law of Moses, not the law of Christ (the law of the Spirit). 14In TGP [Aug. 2023, pg. 20] paragraph 13, sentences 3 and 4, you quoted from the book of Galatians. 15The book of Galatians was written because Judaizing teachers were attempting to bind the law of Moses on the Christians in the churches of Galatia. 16Paul was setting the record straight (Gal. 1:6-9; 5:1-4). 17He directed them to the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). 18You also cited Romans 6:14-15 in [Aug. 2023, pg. 19] paragraph 12, sentence 1. 19The difference between being under the law of Moses and under grace is the only way you could be saved under the law was to keep it perfectly, which no one had ever done except Jesus Christ. 20To keep the law perfectly would’ve meant you did not need to be dependent on the unmerited favor of God (i.e. grace). 21However, the only way we can be under the grace of God, by which we are saved, is by access to God through the blood of Christ. 22We only have access to that blood, and hence the grace of God, by our obedience to His new covenant (Heb. 5:8), the faith (Rom. 1:5). 23Only by the individual’s obedience to whatever law of God he or she lived under can the blood of Christ cover that person – even the Old Testament laws (Heb. 9:15). 24Noah had found grace in the sight of God (Gen. 6:8). 25Why? 26Because he did what God had commanded him to do (Gen. 6:22). 27Then the question comes, “Did God’s grace extend to Noah’s time, then cease during the period of His chosen people because they had a written law, and then pick up again upon the shedding of Christ’s blood?” 28Of course, this question is an absurdity. 29Christ’s blood covers all who died in obedience to God’s law before the cross and all who would be obedient to the new law after the cross. 30Being “under grace” refers to this time period wherein direct access to Christ’s blood and God’s grace is granted upon our obedience – not to the law of Moses, but the law of the Spirit (Rom. 8:2).
(23)
1Some attempt to point out that being technical on any topic having to do with God’s Word is legalism (in the negative sense) and try to equate this with the practices of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 2However, the Pharisees and Sadducees were not condemned for being technical about the law, neither by word nor practice. 3They were condemned for their ignorance of it, adding to it, taking from it, creating loopholes, and being hypocritical in their holding of it (Matt. 15:1-14; 22:23-33; 23:1-39). 4Our righteousness in this sense is supposed to exceed their righteousness (cf. Matt. 5:19-20) – and should, as guided by truth, be more technical (cf. Matt. 23:23). 5We have many great examples of Jesus, Peter, and Paul using formal logic in their techniques of persuading by reason and scripture. 6Paul even argued over one single letter to make the point of scripture clear (Gal. 3:16). 7So many times he tells us to be as he is and to mimic his ways which are an imitation of Christ (1 Cor. 4:17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17, et al.). 8So I want you to know you can be comfortable studying the Word of God in a technical sense, even letter by letter if you wish. 9This is not sin nor negative legalism, but a true sense of devoutness. 10What is sin is if we fail to study to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15) and fail to understand the will of the Lord (Eph. 5:17), ending up in error. 11So we must study and know and do those essential things that will grant us the access to God’s grace and eternal life, especially if we’re going to teach anyone.
(24)
1You expressed a dislike to being called “religious” in TGP [July 2023, pg. 32] paragraph 6, sentences 2-3. 2I want to explain that it is scriptural to be religious in the New Testament sense of the word. 3James says, “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain (James 1:26). 4According to James Strong, the word translated “religious” here is defined as, “ceremonious in worship (as demonstrative), i.e., pious.” 5The James 1:26 passage then implies that if a person “bridles” his tongue (and is obedient in all other aspects of the New Testament), his pious acts are not in vain – he will not seem to be religious, he truly will be. 6The very next verse (v. 27) tells us what pure religion is. 7I would never push the issue of whether or not you want to see yourself, or be known, as “religious.” 8However, to be religious, according to scripture, will in no way imply that we are being too analytical with God’s divine text (legalistic). 9In fact, it is impossible to be too analytical with the scriptures, for God has never put forth a precept against such, but, to the contrary, has certainly set forth the commands for deep study according to our ability and strict obedience. 10The teaching that men have employed against this deep study and strict obedience, that they have termed as “legalism,” is something I hope you will set aside as we continue this correspondence. 11I truly hope I explained this in a way that will give you a new confidence in knowing that God would actually have us to adhere to His Word in this way. 12Please meditate on these things, I ask of you, please, before you come to any conclusion.
Conclusion
Though the foregoing seems to be straight forward and clear teaching, the minds and hearts of men can still be in complete denial. It is always hoped that the reference of the scriptures through citation and quotation would give confidence to the studious to leave error behind. We continue this hope in search for the honest and good heart. The next section of this reply will address the errors in Mrs. Jackson’s response concerning miracles. It is in this portion that “the rubber meets the road” for some blatantly false remarks that were made.
Work Cited
(Strong, James, The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 1996)
