Legalism vs. Obedience

I think this is worth sharing . . .

Dr. McMahon does a good job of presenting his argument, so I have not added any comments of my own here. However, I did make some of his words bold or put them in italics (or colors).


What is the Difference between Legalism and Obedience?
By: Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

There is a dilemma in the Christian church today which, by no means, will be cleared up easily. It is characterized by people who state things like, "We are a New Testament church," or "We do not need the Law anymore because we are under grace." Or, "People who keep the Law are Legalists." If you have said things like these in the past, this tract is for you. We are going to look at the difference between what it means to be legalistic, and what it means to be obedient. There is a wide gulf between the two. But it seems many people have fallen short of what both of these mean.

There is an argument in the 21sth century church that goes like this: Jesus came to fulfill the Law, thus, we do not need to keep the Law. The idea continues as such: And we do not need to keep the Law because we are under the grace of Christ; we cannot earn salvation for ourselves in any way, so the Old Testament is invalid for rules of life and practice. As a matter of fact, there are many people who would throw out the Sermon on the Mount because Jesus expounds on the Law in that instance. They would place everything which alluded to or stated the Law in any way, out with the garbage. They do not give a satisfactory answer why God, in His providence, allowed the Old Testament to be included in our Bible since it deals with the Law. They are adamant that they do not need it, but cannot give a good answer to "why". These people feel that observance to the Law, in any way, is an act of Legalism. And they do not want to become the church of Galatia again. So they have flown to grace, and thrown away the Law.

To define Legalism in a Biblical way would be to say "any person who takes the Law and uses it in a way which would merit salvation". Legalism is an attempt at salvation. Yet, we often hear the term used like this, "Oh, those people are Legalists." The Puritans were often stereotyped in this way. They were so forceful in bringing forth the meaning of the Law, that they were deemed legalists, and then subtitled puritanical. But if we really understand the definition above, then we find that people who follow the Law of God in a way which does not see it adding to the meritorious work of Jesus Christ and His cross are not Legalists. Legalists, by definition, would be saying that the Law helps us to gain salvation. This was the problem with the Judiaizers. They thought that by keeping the Law, plus believing in the work of Christ, made a person saved. In Galatians 5:3, Paul says, "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by Law; you have fallen from grace." There were some who thought that being circumcised helped in salvation. But Paul says that the moment you add anything to the work of Christ, then you have fallen from grace. Christ's work alone justifies the ungodly (Gal. 2:16; 3:11-13, 24; 6:13-14). (Sola Christus-Christ alone.)

Legalists are wrong. You cannot use the Law to be saved. You cannot keep the commandments as a means to justification because no one always does what is right and never sins (Eccl. 7:20). And those who stumble at one point are guilty of the whole Law (James 2:10). The Law shows us our sin, but it cannot save us. It only makes us aware of our need (Rom. 7:7).

Being a Legalist is not biblical. It is not an option for the Christian. So what do we say then? Are those who throw away the Law right? If Christ issues grace to us, and we cannot keep the Law, then why use it? What good is the Law? Should we be a "New Testament Church?"

It is true that Legalism is wrong and will send a person to hell for believing that keeping the law in and of itself will save them in their own works. Galatians 1:8 states, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." But throwing away the Law will also send you to hell as well. Rev. 22:14 states, "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." The book of Revelation makes it clear that those who shall enter the New Jerusalem and spend eternity with God are those who "do His commandments." The word "commandments" is plural. That means God requires we keep more than one commandment. And often people will tell us to keep the greatest commandment and that is all. But Christ wants us to keep all His commandments.

Rev. 22:18-19 also helps to show that God does not want anyone to subtract from His Word in any way, "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." No one is to take away or add to God's Word. Does that mean we have to keep the Ceremonial Law too since it is part of God's Word? And do we have to sacrifice animals again because the Ceremonial Law shows us this in the Old Testament? These are good questions, and the answers to these and similar questions are answered in a balanced knowledge of the work of Christ.

Christ has come and completed the Law. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says He has come to "fulfill the Law". The word fulfill is plhro,w, {play-ro'-o}. It means "to make full, to fill up; to make complete in every particular, to render perfect; to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking); to fulfill, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfillment." Jesus came to fill up the Law and complete it in our stead. This does not mean He has done away with it, or made it void. That is not the meaning of the word used. In Matthew 5:18, one verse later, He states, "For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled." Not only does Jesus not nullify the Law for us, but rather He does just the opposite: that in view of His work to fulfill it, not one jot or tittle shall be removed. Jesus has given Christians the ability in salvation, because of His work as the sinless Savior, to make moral choices once again on behalf of the Law. He kept the Law so we could keep it as well. Jesus' work enables us to run the race in a way worthy to win the prize. He does not invalidate the Law, but places it before us knowing that He will be working through us to keep it. And though we stumble in keeping it, He is ever working in us to overcome the stumbling blocks.

The Legalistic notion here is dispelled. For we do not keep the Law to be saved. But rather, in keeping the Law we show ourselves to already have gained salvation through the cross of Christ. In light of the cross of Christ and the liberation from the power of sin we receive from Christ's work, we are now free to keep the Law (Gal. 4:31).

Christ requires obedience. We are not to become Antinomians. And those who say we must rid ourselves of the Law are nothing but heretical Antinomians. An Antinomian is someone who is "anti", "against" or "instead of", the "nomos" or "law". He says that a person can be saved and never have to worry about living a life of obedience because we are under the grace of Christ. But Paul so quickly dispels this notion in Romans when he says, "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the Law, but under grace? God forbid (6:15). We are not given liberty to sin, but we are given liberty not to sin. And how shall we not sin unless we know what sin is? And how shall we know what sin is unless we follow the Law? "Is the Law sin, God forbid." (Rom. 7:7) God has given us His commandments that we may become obedient to His commands. And we are able to be obedient through the blood-sacrifice of His Son on the cross for us. Without a thorough washing in the blood of Christ, no man is able to follow the Law in any capacity. No, we are not Legalists, and we are not Antinomians. We are Christians who wish to do the will of the Father. We are those who can say along with Paul, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17)." The Antinomians cannot say this. The Legalist cannot say this. Only those who are liberated by Christ to keep the Law can say this, for he finds all of the Word of God profitable. Why? To be equipped for every good work. Jesus says that those who are "anti-law" go to hell, no matter if they even preached in His name, or did miracles, or even cast out demons. Jesus says in Matthew 7:23, "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" What is someone who is "lawless?" It is someone that lives their life without the Law of God. It is someone "law-less".

We are not Legalists when we keep the Law, because we do not look to the Law for life. Rather the Law shows us we have true life in our hearts. We keep the Law to be obedient to Christ and show Him how much we love Him for rescuing us from the damning influences of trying to keep the Law to gain eternal life. Obedience is a far cry from Legalism.

"What is obedience?" would be the next question to answer. Obedience is expressing the love of Christ to Christ in keeping the Law. Christ works in us the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-25). The Spirit works through us the love of Christ for good works; for this is what we were created to do. God created us for good works (Eph. 2:10). Christ's love in us motions us to good works as we study and observe the Law. In our enjoyment of this labor before God, God is pleased, and He is glorified. When we enjoy following all God's commands He is pleased. Shall we not be obedient when God, in numerous passages, commands obedience from us as stewards of His Word? (Num. 27:20; Isaiah 1:19; Acts 6:7; Rom. 6:16; 16:19; 16:26; 2 Cor. 7:15; 9:13; Phil 1:21; 1 Peter 1:2) God requires us to be obedient in every circumstance, and those who would say otherwise are evil wolves disguised in sheep's clothing to deceive the people of God. And it is interesting to see that in Matthew 7:15 Jesus calls those who would hurt the sheep "ravenous wolves". He said this at the end of the Sermon on the Mount which is an exposition of the Ten Commandments and of Kingdom living. This is no coincidence. God does not want false prophets coming into the church telling her that she does not need to keep the Law. That is nothing but blasphemy and heresy against the Word of God. We must endeavor to keep the Law in a holy manner through Christ.

So we see that there is a large gulf between what it means to be Legalistic (keeping the Law for salvation) and obedient (keeping the Law because we have been saved). We need the Law to show us our sin. We need the Law to direct us into righteousness. We need the commands of Christ which are laid all through the Scriptures to further our sanctification and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord (Heb. 12:14). Salvation does not depend on keeping the Law, but rather, our salvation is seen in us when we do keep the Law.

Walk into any 21st Century church this Sunday and inquire about what it means to keep the Sabbath holy? How does a person follow the 4th commandment? The people would look at you perplexed. They would see you as a Legalist. And if you had not raised the question, it would have never entered their mind at all. Even as they sit through the Sunday School lesson, the singing of a psalm or two, and the hearing of the sermon, they await the final benediction during Sunday Church and never realize what the Sabbath is even about. That is a travesty; it is sin.

May we become people of the Word, the whole Word and nothing but the Word. May we throw away the heresy of Legalism, and embrace obedience to Christ. For unless we obey Christ, we have no part in Him. For He says, "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say? (Luke 6:46, from the Sermon on the plain)." It is not that we are Legalists when we obey Christ, rather, we are Christians when we obey Him.

Source: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Tracts%20and%20Writings/LegalismAndObedience.htm

Re: Christmas, and my points of disagreement with John MacArthur, Jr.

The Miracle of Christmas (By: John MacArthur, Jr.)

1. Christians and Christmas

Christmas as a holiday was not observed until well after the biblical era. the early church of the New Testament celebrated Jesus' resurrection, but not His birthday. In fact, Christmas was not given an kind of official recognition by the church until the mid-fifth century.

--> Comment: I don't believe the early church celebrated "Easter." Easter also has pagan roots. But yes, for sure, "Christmas" did not exist until man invented it, quite some time after the Apostles walked the earth.

Partly because so many Christmas customs seem to have their roots in paganism, Christians have often been resistant to some of the rituals of the holiday. The Puritans in early America rejected Christmas celebrations altogether. They deliberately worked on December 25 to show their disdain. A law passed in England in 1644 reflected a similar Puritan influence; the law made Christmas Day an official working day. For a time in England it was literally illegal to cook plum pudding or mince pie for the holidays.

--> Comment:It was a crime in early America to recognize Christmas. The Puritans believed that Christmas, invented by men, and without any Scriptural authority behind it, was a violation of the regulative principle and at least one of the Five Solas, SOLA SCRIPTURA. To use the name of Christ, in a man-made invention, without one word of Scripture to support it, is clearly (at least in my mind) for lack of better words, a "big no-no." Please take a look at an earlier entry in this blog re: "Strange Fire."

Christians today are generally not opposed to celebrating Christmas. The holiday itself is nothing, and observing it is not a question of right or wrong. As Paul wrote, "One man regards on day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God." (Romans 14:5-6). Every day, including Christmas, is celebration for us who know and love Him (Jesus).

--> Comment:I responded to this passage (I "think") in another blog entry. I fully agree that we should "celebrate" Christ EVERY day, in our hearts and in our lives. And, if we do so, there is no need to invent and appoint one particular day of the year to do so.

"We must admit that we cannot now determine in what sense the weak members of the Roman church regarded one day as being better than another, while they still observed and honored the Lord’s Day, that is, the first day of the week. That this ignorance on our part is not very serious is shown by the fact that, after verses 5, 6, in this entire epistle the apostle never again refers to this difference about days." -- Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J.

"It is obvious from the context, and from such parallel passages as Galatians 4:10 and Colossians 2:16, that Paul was referring here to the Jewish festivals . . ." -- C. Hodge

Matthew Henry writes: "Those who thought themselves still under some kind of obligation to the ceremonial law esteemed one day above another—kept up a respect to the times of the passover, pentecost, new moons, and feasts of tabernacles . . . Those who knew that all these things were abolished and done away by Christ’s coming esteemed every day alike. We must understand it with an exception of the Lord’s day, which all Christians unanimously observed; but they made no account, took no notice, of those antiquated festivals of the Jews . . . The apostle seems willing to let the ceremonial law wither by degrees . . ."

--> Comment: So, these "days" had to do with remnants of the Jewish ceremonial laws, which were abrogated by the Incarnation. The apostle is NOT saying that you can invent man-made "holidays," and call them "holy days," because using the name of Christ must always involve some degree of WORSHIP, and we are not to worship God except in accord with His instructions, per His Holy Writ. If Paul was willing (in his time) to let the "ceremonial law wither by degrees" then it would have withered to the point of death and expiration a LONG time ago.

How we observe Christmas is the central issue. Do we observe it for the Lord's sake or for our own sinful self-gratification: Do we even think about why and how we celebrate it? That is the heart of the matter. Christmas is an opportunity for us to exalt Jesus Christ. We ought to take advantage of it (p. 25)

--> Comment: The thinking here is not according to the Word of God; it is independent and autonomous and APART FROM the Word of God. MacArthur cannot say what he just said and conclude with, "Thus sayeth the Lord!" He must conclude with, "Thus sayeth MacArthur." I think he is unequivocally wrong here. To observe it at all is to join in with the culture (in conforming to the world; see Romans 12) and is showing support for a pagan "holy day." The Apostles didn't do it. Most of the earliest Protestants did not do it; it came out of ROMAN CATHOLICISM -- not out of the Word of God. Many of the 1st Americans did not do it. And if God wanted us to celebrate the birth of His Son, He surely would have said so. I do not believe He "forgot" to mention it. Do you?

2. Where Did Christmas Trees Come From?

Christmas trees seem to have their origins in the ancient celebrations of Saturnalia. The Romans decorated their temples with greenery and candles. Roman soldiers conquering the British Isles found Druids who worshiped mistletoe and Saxons who used holly and ivy in religious ceremonies. All those things found their way into Christmas customs.

Interestingly, however, the first person to have lighted a Christmas tree may have been Martin Luther, father of the Reformation. He introduced the practice of putting candles on trees to celebrate Christmas, citing Isaiah 60:13 as biblical authority for the practice: "The glory of Lebanon will come to you, the juniper, the box tree, and the cypress together, to beautify the place of My sanctuary; and I shall make the place of My feet glorious."

--> Comment: Did Peter or Paul celebrate Christmas, in any fashion? No. Why didn't they? Do you think they esteemed Christ less than we do today? Less than Martin Luther (assuming the above story is true)?

3. When Was the First Christmas?

No one really knows when Christ was born. It probably was not December 25, because Scripture says there were shepherds in the fields watching over their flocks, and that would have been highly unlikely in the middle of winter.

Our focus on December 25 came from the roman holiday called Saturnalia. This was a pagan observance of the birthday of the unconquered sun. Saturnalia began December 18 each year, which, in the northern hemisphere, is when the days start getting longer, and continued with seven days of wild revelry. Many of our Christmas customs have their origins in Saturnalia, which was marked by feasting, parades, special music, gift giving, lighted candles, and green trees.

--> Comment: Yes!!!

As Christianity spread through the Roman empire, the pagan holiday was given Christian connotations. In 336 Emperor Constantine declared Christ's birthday an official Roman holiday. Some church leaders, such as Chrysostom, rebuked Christians for adopting a pagan holiday, but December 25 has endured as the date we celebrate Christ's birth.

--> Comment: I believe this is accurate, but it certainly does not present a case in favor of observing Christmas; it does the opposite!

7. Christmas Presents

Christmas is a good time for giving. After all, we are celebrating the greatest gift ever given-God's Son: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16) God's great Gift was first of all a gift of love to an unworthy world. He gave not because He had to, bu because He loves us. And our giving should reflect His love. If we can keep that perspective-especially in the minds of our children-this can be one of the most blessed and enjoyable aspects of the holiday.

It isn't easy to keep one's perspective so focused. Christmas has become too commercial, too carefully merchandised, too crassly materialistic to lend itself to teaching any spiritual truth about giving. Every year at Christmas, the buying frenzy gets worse. Have you ever noticed, for example, how much stuff is sold that nobody needs? It doesn't have any practical use. It just sits there, collecting dust.

--> Comment: Right on!

Our society is literally filled with the unnecessary, the insignificant, and the meaningless. And people spend a fortune on that kind of junk for Christmas. Why? Often, it is the quickest and easiest way to complete an obligatory Christmas list. What meaning is there in that?

--> Comment: Amen!

In my opinion we are to demonstrate our love for each other, and our awareness of each other's needs, every day, ongoing. We don't have to wait for a man-made pagan holiday, rife with expectations and a sense of entitlement, etc. I say give gifts throughout the year, when someone is not expecting it. Will a gift not mean "more" this way? If you gave up participating in the observance of Christmas, what would you be giving up? What would you lose? Is it the fact that you don't want to lose these things the reason why you do it? Do you think God would be offended if you didn't observe the man-made invention of Christmas, along with the rest of the world, including Jews and atheists? If so, can you support such a position from Scripture?

The most heinous criminals, love their Christmas. Those who hate Christ, love their Christmas. Those who do not believe in Christ, love their Christmas. Those who only go inside a church building twice a year (Christmas and Easter), love their Christmas. The WORLD, loves Christmas. The VENDORS, love Christmas. You get the idea, and could probably add to this list. The big question is, does God love Christmas? And if He does, then why did He not think of it Himself?

I hope you will read my first blog entry (October 2009) re: the REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE, which is the name of this blog. Thanks, and may God bless you in your search for the Truth (which can only be found in the Mind of God, as revealed to us via His Holy Bible).

THE TIMES WE ARE LIVING IN . . . WERE BORN INTO

We have been born into an ungodly world that is not shocked by sin.

We have been desensitized to much of what is going on around and about us.

Many of us have been brought up having liberal access to television, movies, magazines, books, records (music), and other forms of media and mass communication.

We have been greatly influenced (and not for good) by these things.

The Puritans and many of history’s greatest theologians were not influenced and/or corrupted by these things.

Thesis:
They knew the Bible very well, and were able to think more clearly, and Biblically, than we. Therefore, we should honor them (more than we do). We should acknowledge that they were “right” about a lot of stuff that we’ve lost sight of . . . and we should follow their lead and example re: the things of God.

Do you know the “boiling frog” anecdote?

The boiling frog story is a widespread anecdote describing a frog slowly being boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability of people to react to important changes that occur gradually.

We have taken on many of the thoughts, values, customs and traditions, etc. of the surrounding world or culture. The world/culture is every bit as heathen and pagan as it was in the time of the Prophets and Apostles, etc. The passage of time has not changed this much. Much of the world we are living in is still quite godless, decadent, and sinful.

In short, we (sometime unwittingly and unconsciously) have adopted pagan ways, customs, values, and principles and think nothing of it; because we have ceased to think (critically). We are like the frog that is being boiled, without being aware of it.

Thus we are not responding and reacting Biblically to the surrounding culture/world. We are often guilty of thinking as the “world” thinks, not as God would have us think.

If we were guided solely by SOLA SCRIPTURA, this would not be the case . . . at least not as much.

^EPH4:17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind . . .

"When this statement is analyzed it becomes clear that two ideas are combined here: (a) Lay aside your former manner of life and (b) do not imitate your present evil environment. With reference to Gentile conduct Paul adds: in the futility of their mind. The apostle emphasizes a very important point, namely, that all those endeavors which the Gentiles put forth in order to attain happiness end in disappointment. Their life is one long series of mocked expectations. It is a pursuing and not achieving, a blossoming and not bearing fruit. All the rivers run into the sea, but the sea is never filled. The eye is never satisfied with seeing nor the ear with hearing. All this chasing after riches, honor, mirth, etc., is nothing but “a striving after wind” (Eccles. 1:7, 8; 3:9). Their mind or intellect is fruitless. It produces naught that can satisfy." -- Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J.

My COMMENT: When we imitate the customs and inventions of MEN, we are imitating our evil environment. (Evil = wrong)

"Paul solemnly enjoins those who profess to be Christians to live in accordance with this high vocation: So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. To insist, in this case, is to say solemnly, like a person who calls on God to bear witness to the truth and the importance of what he says. Insist here means “to invoke as a witness” rather than “to act as a witness.” In the Lord means in communion with the Lord. Paul speaks as one who had access to the mind of Christ, knew his will, and could therefore speak in his name. The exhortation is to no longer live as the Gentiles do. The word translated live literally means “walk.” “To walk,” in Scripture, includes all the manifestations of life, inner and outer, seen and unseen. It does not merely express the outer, visible action. People are said to walk with God, which refers to the secret fellowship of the soul with its Maker, more than to the outer life. So here the walk which the apostle tells us to avoid is not only the visible actions which characterize the Gentiles, but also the inner life which the outer actions reveal." -- Hodge, C

My COMMENT: The word, "Gentiles" = the pagan culture around and about us. In the time of Paul, it would have been, for example, the Greek culture. We are not to live as the Gentiles do. When we act as they do, on "special" days that MEN have appointed as "special," we are imitating them . . . living like they do . . . and "walking" like they do . . . and FOLLOWING AFTER THEIR THINKING (all of which is contrary to Biblical thinking).

When/if something sounds “radical” to someone, that someone will often feel confronted and defensive. One reason is because she/he knows that to consent to the idea, notion, or premise would either create a radical change in how one lives . . . or a tremendous internal conflict, from knowing that something is true, but failing to live it out.

So, often, the best defense (perhaps unwittingly) is to try to find something “wrong” with the view, so that agreement with the other person’s “radical” position will not be necessary.

A THESIS is a proposition stated or put forward for consideration, especially one to be discussed and proved or to be maintained against objections.

If you disagree with the thoughts and comments on this page, please disagree from Scripture, from the Bible, citing chapters and verses . . . thanks! May God bless you and yours!

SELF DENIAL . . . DENIAL of the SELF

Questions:

The Bible promotes SELF-DENIAL. Is this true? I believe so. Do you agree?

Is celebrating the day of one’s birth consistent with (Biblical) self-denial?

Is there anywhere, in the Bible, that we are commended to celebrate the day of our birth?


MATTHEW 16:24
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me."

To deny the "self" means to renounce the old self, the self as it is apart from regenerating grace. A person who denies himself gives up all reliance on whatever he is by nature, and depends for salvation on God alone. He no longer seeks to promote his own predominantly selfish interests but has become wrapped up in the cause of promoting the glory of God in his own and in every life, and also in every sphere of endeavor. -- Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J.

Comment: Please note in the above:
• DENY self (and take up the cross)
• Renounce the old self
• No longer seek to promote self-centered interests

Do birthday celebrations promote self denial? Christ says to deny self . . . we cannot deny self and at the same time celebrate self. To glorify the self (with a celebration) is incompatible with (first and foremost) promoting the glory of God. Have you ever observed the sense of entitlement, and disappointment, in children . . . who have all sorts of carnal demands and/or expectations in connection with their birthdays? Ever seen this in some “adults”?

The self must be crucified daily; the devil must be resisted daily; the world must be overcome daily. There is a war to be waged, and a battle to be fought. – J.C. RYLE

If self-denial be a hard lesson, and against the grain to flesh and blood, it is no more than what our Master learned and practiced before us and for us, both for our redemption and for our instruction; and the servant is not above his lord. Note, All the disciples and followers of Jesus Christ must deny themselves. It is the fundamental law of admission into Christ’s school, and the first and great lesson to be learned in this school, to deny ourselves; it is both the strait gate, and the narrow way; it is necessary in order to our learning all the other good lessons that are there taught. We must deny ourselves absolutely, we must not admire our own shadow, nor gratify our own humor; we must not lean to our own understanding, nor seek our own things, nor be our own end. We must deny ourselves comparatively; we must deny ourselves for Christ, and his will and glory, and the service of his interest in the world; we must deny ourselves for our brethren, and for their good; and we must deny ourselves for ourselves, deny the appetites of the body for the benefit of the soul.
– Matthew HENRY

Comment: Nothing Matthew Henry says here is compatible with the concept of celebrating the anniversary of one’s birth. In my opinion (and ALL of this is my opinion) most people follow the “ways of the world” unthinkingly . . . without asking questions . . . without tracing these rituals, customs, and traditions back to their source . . . sources that are typically pagan, and man-made.

God flat-out said we must not IMITATE the ways of the PAGANS.

This is the Word of God:
“. . . and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that they should NOT do like them." -- 2 Kings 17:15


LUKE 14:26
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.”

GALATIANS 5:24
And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

LUKE 14:33
So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.

Wholehearted devotion, all-out loyalty, complete self-denial, so that one places himself, his time, his earthly possessions, his talents, etc., at the disposal of Christ, is what Jesus asks.
-- Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J.

Comment: We are to love our own life LESS than we love God. If this were not true we would have no examples of martyrs.

The famous observation of Tertullian that, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church,” has a depth of insight which is all too often lost on believers today.
See: http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/05/the_blood_of_the_martyrs.php

We are to practice self-denial. Self-denial and birthday parties cannot co-exist; they are antithetical.

MT10:37
He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Christ’s words may be paraphrased as follows: “The person who, when the issue is between me and what he considers his own interests, chooses the latter, thinking that by so doing he is going to ‘find’ himself, that is, secure a firmer hold on the full life, will be bitterly disappointed. He will lose rather than gain. His happiness and usefulness will shrink and shrivel rather than increase. -- Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J.

Comment: Jesus says, “. . . loses his life . . .” If we have done this, or are doing this, then there is no “life” left to celebrate. Loss of life entails DEATH. We are to DIE to self. In other words, it’s not about us. It’s about Christ. What would you have to give up if you decided to stop celebrating birthdays? How radically would it alter your life? How much would you have to suffer (and perhaps endure ridicule or insult) because of your decision to do so? What is it that makes you want to hold on so tightly to a ritual that has no Biblical support or foundation? What does 2 Kings 17:15 say?

MARK 8:34
When He had called the people to Himself, with His disciples also, He said to them, “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.”

What, then, must a person do in order to be considered a true disciple? Well, if he wishes to come behind me, says Jesus, then first, he must deny himself; that is, he must once and for all say farewell to the old self, the self as it is apart from regenerating grace. A person who denies himself gives up all reliance on whatever he is by nature, and depends for salvation on God alone. He turns away in dismay not only from whatever thoughts and habits are patently sinful but even from reliance on “religious”—for example Pharisaic—thought patterns that cannot be harmonized with trust in Christ. See II Cor. 10:5. He must be willing to say with Paul, “Such things that once were gains to me these have I counted loss for Christ.…” See Phil. 3:7–11.
-- Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J.

Comment: If we say “farewell” to the “old self,” then there is no old self left to celebrate. It is the old self that came from the womb. The whole concept is rendered null and void.

“. . . live a life of self-denial, mortification, and contempt of the world; let him not pretend to be his own physician, but renounce all confidence in himself and his own righteousness and strength, and let him take up his cross, conforming himself to the pattern of a crucified Jesus . . .”
– M. Henry

Comment: Birthday celebrations are incompatible with self-mortification and demonstrating contempt of the world. The “world” is in love with all the trappings of the birthday “party.” The Word of God says this:

1st John 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world— the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world.

Birthday celebrations are all about loving the things of this world . . . all about the desires of the flesh . . . the desires of the eyes . . . the pride of possessions, etc. There is covetousness involved. There is no way to make a viable case that birthday celebrations are SPIRITUAL.

ROMANS6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

GAL2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

COL2:20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—

Mundane ordinances have ceased to have any value for him because his mundane life has ended. They belong to the category of the perishable; he has been translated to the region of the eternal. -- J.B. LIGHTFOOT

Comment: A birthday celebration is “mundane.” What is the value of being involved in such a thing? What would you lose if you gave up the practice?

Arguments:
1) If God wanted us to have a party, feast, festival, or any kind of celebration for our “birthday” He would have said so. Do you think he "forgot" (to mention it)?

2) The concept of a birthday party is a man-made invention. It was invented by pagan cultures, and initially practiced only by Kings and Queens (of pagan lands). We are not to imitate the pagans. The first people who took up the practice were imitating royalty -- PAGAN royalty. They must have reasoned something like this, "Hmm . . . I think I should be treated like a King (or Queen) on MY birthday too! Good idea! I WANT LOTS OF GIFTS! LOTS OF ATTENTION! LOTS OF GOODIES AND TREATS AND SWEETS!" (and so forth)

3) Imagine you stopped the practice. How much would that change your life (and some of your relationships)? How much (do you think it) would “hurt” you? What would it “cost” you (to give it up)? What would you “lose”? Is THAT the main reason you don't? Because the cost would be too great?

4) Whatever it is that would “hurt” is what Christ tells us to crucify . . . mortify . . . renounce . . . give up. Birthday parties and HUMBLING SELF have no kinship.

5) We can give gifts ANY day of the year; ANY day of the year we can show our loved ones how much we love and appreciate them.

6) The WHOLE counsel of Scripture (and there are some passages that I have not included in my argument) does not make a case FOR birthday celebrations; it makes a case AGAINST them. So, the answers to my opening questions:

Is celebrating the day of one’s birth consistent with (Biblical) self-denial?

Is there anywhere, in the Bible, that we are commended to celebrate the day of our birth?

is “No.”

These are my arguments . . . from Scripture. If you think I have mishandled the Word, and disagree with me based on a different understanding of Scripture, I would appreciate hearing your comment(s). Agreeable comments are welcome too! Thanks, and God bless!

re: CHRISTIAN LIBERTY

CHRISTIAN LIBERTY and LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE
(per the London Baptist Confession)


The liberty which Christ has purchased for believers under the Gospel consists of their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, and the severity and curse of the [moral] law.1 It also includes their deliverance from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, the dominion of sin,2 the distress of afflictions, the fear and sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation.3 Furthermore, it includes their free access to God, and their ability to yield obedience to him, not out of slavish fear, but with childlike love, and willing minds.4 All these blessings were also shared in essence by believers under the [Old Testament] law;5 but, under the New Testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law to which the Jews were subjected. We also have greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and fuller provision of the free Spirit of God than believers under the law normally experienced.

(1) Joh 3:36; Rom 8:33; Gal 3:13
(2) Gal 1:4; Eph 2:1-3; Col 1:13; Act 26:18; Rom 6:14-18; 8:3
(3) Rom 8:28; 1Co 15:54-57; 1Th 1:10; Heb 2:14-15
(4) Eph 2:18; 3:12; Rom 8:15; 1Jo 4:18
(5) Joh 8:32; Psa 19:7-9; 119:14,24,45,47,48,72,97; Rom 4:5-11; Gal 3:9; Heb 11:27,33-34
(6) Joh 1:17; Heb 1:1-2a; 7:19,22; 8:6; 9:23; 11:40; Gal 2:11-12; 4:1-3; Col 2:16-17; Heb 10:19-21; Joh 7:38-39


Comment: So, this freedom (or liberty) has to do with freedom from:

(1) The guilt of sin

(2) The wrath of God

(3) The curse of the moral law

(4) The evil world

(5) Bondage to Satan

(6) Dominion of sin

(7) Distress of afflictions

(8) Fear and sting of death

(9) The grave

(10) Damnation

(11) Jewish ceremonial laws



And includes the benefits of:

(1) A free access to God

(2) Greater ability to obey God

(3) Bolder access to God’s throne

(4) A fuller provision of God’s Spirit



Comment: There’s nothing here that talks about the "liberty" to invent or devise something that is not in God’s Word, or that adds to or takes away from it; nothing here that says SOLA SCRIPTURA is no longer our standard.

God alone is Lord of the conscience,1 and he has left it free from [obligations to] human doctrines and commandments which are in any way contrary to his Word or not contained in it.2 So to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience.3 To require an implicit faith, or absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason.

(1) Jas 4:12; Rom 14:4; Gal 5:1
(2) Act 4:19; 5:29; 1Co 7:23; Mat 15:9
(3) Col 2:20,22-23; Gal 1:10; 2:3-5; 5:1
(4) Rom 10:17; 14:23; Act 17:11; Joh 4:22; 1Co 3:5; 2Co 1:24

Comment: Instead of license TO (for example) observe the “special” days that the rest of the world INVENTED to make special, our actual liberty consists in freedom from these human doctrines and inventions . . . which ARE both contrary to His Word AND not contained in it. Instead of supporting a position that says, for example, it’s okay to make Christmas (or Easter) a special day, just like the rest of the world does, it in fact refutes such a position.

Those who practice any sin or harbor any sinful desires on pretense of Christian liberty, pervert the main purpose of the grace of the Gospel to their own destruction.1 They completely destroy the purpose of Christian liberty, which is that we (having been delivered from all our [spiritual] enemies) might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our lives.

(1) Rom 6:1-2
(2) Luk 1:74-75; Rom 14:9; Gal 5:13; 2Pe 2:18,21

Comment: The PURPOSE of Christian Liberty is the freedom to better serve God, since we NOW have (since Christ came) greater freedom from our spiritual adversary, Satan (and his agents). Thus, Christian Liberty does not give us any kind of license; it in fact does the opposite. It does not give us the “liberty” to come up with anything that is “contrary to His Word or not contained it.”

re: "Special" Days (of the year)

These views pertain to observing “special” days . . . which the WORLD celebrates ANNUALLY.

My view is that the Lord’s Day (Sunday) is the ONLY Day that God has appointed that should be esteemed above another day, along with certain commands and requirements, associated with the 4th Commandment:

8“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”

To the reader . . . I beseech you to come with humility of mind, and a readiness to receive the Word of God; to come with a mind inquiring after truth alone.

Note: What follows is arranged as “points,” not as a systematic presentation. For that, please see the link at the end of this page (for the full article, that many of these points was taken from).

These points speak for themselves, and sometimes rather strongly; therefore, I have decided to NOT comment on (or add to) them here.

1. “Special Day”-keeping, the keeping of “special” days, can only be defended on the grounds of being either a necessity or a liberty. It is self-evident that these are not days of “necessity,” as they have absolutely no Scriptural warrant. If keeping them is a matter of liberty, which churches and Christians may freely use or disuse, then why is observance required, or always mentioned and given some degree of honor and esteem (in some churches)?

2. Much of what the Pharisees required of men were merely additions to the Word of God, not contradictions. They were things "in addition to" the word of God, not things "contrary to his Word" (e.g. hand washing or baptizing of cups and pots) (Matt. 15:1-3; Mark 7:3-4).


3. Are not these “special days” a "departure from those things which Christ, our only Master, hath instituted?" Are they not of human invention?

4. Good works (what God deems “good”) are only such as God hath commanded in his Holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intention.


5. The acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in his Holy Word. (This “regulative principle” can be found in the various Reformed Confessions)

6. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing, at any time, is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. (This “regulative principle” can be found in the various Reformed Confessions)

7. According to the Westminster Standards, the Word of God is the rule of faith and the only source by which to know what works are pleasing to God. When this basic principle (the sufficiency, authority and perfection of Scripture) is applied to the worship of God, it follows that all worship must be based on the revealed will of God, and offered according to His institution. Furthermore, in matters of faith and worship, we are freed by true Christian liberty not only from things explicitly contrary to the Word, but also from things merely "apart from" the Word. That is, the silence of scripture cannot be used to justify an innovation in worship, even if that innovation is not explicitly contrary to any commandment.

8. "Shall we suppose that Christ and his apostles, in abrogating those days which God Himself had appointed to be observed, without instituting others in their room, intended that either churches or individuals should be allowed to substitute whatever they pleased in their room?" -- Thomas M'Crie


9. The Jews did not determine for themselves which events were worthy of perpetual remembrance by annual religious festivals. Rather, these days were appointed by God in His law. The right of establishing festival days was reserved to God Himself. It was a regulative principle issue, a matter of God's revealed will. These observances were not annual in character, or perpetual; they were occasional . . . in other words, they were celebrated only once, not annually. It is the prerogative of God alone to institute and abrogate religious festival days. Man has no role or right in their appointment.

10. This distinction (in #9), once established, does not vanish in the New Testament. The Jewish festival days are beautifully fulfilled in Christ, and thus done away forever. They are never applied to the Gentile converts, although a period of tolerance for weak Jewish brethren was allowed with regard to their continued observance. There is as much warrant for specially called days of prayer now as under the Old Testament; but the appointment of festival days remains the prerogative of God alone; and as He saw fit to assign a multitude under the Old Testament, so He saw fit to fulfill and abolish them without replacement under the New (Gal. 4:9-10).


11. Are Christmas (and Easter) festival days or prayer days? The Confessions all regard them as festival days. They clearly fail to meet the description of an occasional day of fasting or rejoicing, as they are a repeated, memorial, religious festival. It only then remains to ask, was Christmas (and Easter) appointed by God or by men?

12. Stated and recurring festivals countenance the false principle, that some days have a peculiar sanctity, either inherent or impressed by the works which occurred on them. They proceed on an undue assumption of human authority; interfere with the free use of that time which the Creator hath granted to man; detract from the honor due to the day of sacred rest which he hath appointed; lead to impositions over conscience; have been a fruitful source of superstition and idolatry; and have been productive of the worst effects upon morals, in every age, and among every people, barbarous and civilized, pagan and Christian, popish and Protestant, among whom they have been observed.

13. "Long before the fourth century, and long before the Christian era itself, a festival was celebrated among the heathen, at that precise time of the year, in honor of the birth of the son of the Babylonian queen of heaven; and it may be fairly presumed that, in order to conciliate the heathen, and to swell the number of the nominal adherents of Christianity, the same festival was adopted by the Roman Church, giving it only the name of Christ." -- Alexander Hislop (regarding Christmas)


14. "And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that they should NOT do like them." -- 2 Kings 17:15

15. It is well known that the day (December 25) was adopted by the declining church, along with a host of other practices, as a growth technique, to suit the tastes of the pagan multitudes whose actual religions had been criminalized by the emperor of Rome. Not only the day was adopted from paganism, but most of the customs as well, from the Christmas tree to the Christmas goose. Even the name is offensive and hostile to the true religion, being purely popish in its meaning of "Christ's-mass." Indeed, Christmas is stained not only by its pagan origins, but also by its popish associations. God flatly forbids the adoption of pagan religious customs, or their syncretism with his revealed faith and worship (Deut. 12:2-3, 29-32; Lev. 18:3; Ex. 23:24; 2 Cor. 6:14-17). It was forbidden absolutely to the ancient church to introduce this day, even if the introduction of other days had been lawful. And the same is true for all the pagan and superstitious customs and traditions that accompany the day. God's moral standards have not changed. We are just as forbidden today to syncretize with false religion as the Israelites of old were.

16. "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain." -- Gal. 4:9-11


17. Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. -- Mark 7:9

18. Whenever men institute unwarranted religious observances, they become more zealous in defending their own inventions than that which IS commanded by God.


19. What began with a refusal to repent of false worship ended with the murder of the Lord of glory (Matt. 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23). How much of the prophets' blood was shed simply for calling Israel back to the pure worship of God? And how vigorously was Paul opposed by those who sought to contaminate the worship of God with Jewish traditions and pagan customs?

20. Was God "rigid" (or legalistic) when He did NOT make allowance for the celebration of Christmas in his Word -- when he failed to substitute this observance for the abolished Jewish ceremonies? Was the early church "rigid" when they failed to commemorate or even record the day of Christ's birth, and instead condemned the keeping of days as superstitious?

22. Surely stifling human innovation in the worship of God is no sin, and no cause for alarm and concern. In fact, it is a virtue. Our Savior practiced it regularly.

23. To Timothy also he (Paul) gives warnings and admonitions to beware of the lies of those who would bind the people of God to unscriptural observances, and to teach carefully those doctrines which will preserve the church from such errors (1 Tim. 2:1-7).

24. Reader, if the Son has made you free, you are free indeed. Do not compromise your freedom by submitting to the whims and traditions of men (of the WORLD) in the worship of God.

25. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to his Word; or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience...."

The full article, from which portions of the above were borrowed, can be found here:

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/Xmas_ch3.htm

STRANGE FIRE

Leviticus 10 (NKJV)

¹And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.

²And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

³Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.

Consider the words of Dr. C. Matthew McMahon regarding this passage :

" . . . Where did God say that such a fire was not to be offered? I tell you friends, you will search in vain to find such a place where it says that God commanded Nadab and Abihu not to offer such a fire. There is no place in Scripture saying anything remotely close to this. God told them what they should do, but not what they should not do. He never said, Do not offer that kind of fire. It was their sin and wickedness for offering up to God something other than what He commanded.

Then, the Lord gives us, by Moses, the principal text in verse 3, This is what the LORD spoke, saying: 'By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified.' " If you were Moses, would this have been consoling to Aaron? Would this be what you would have said? Was this consolation? We are far past the consolation of the human sort. We must indulge ourselves into God's rebuke and his instruction to be fully satisfied in this instance. God says He is to be regarded as a holy and majestic God. The word holy here is qadash (kaw-dash') which means to show oneself sacred or majestic, to be honoured, be treated as sacred, or to be holy. God is not to be treated or regarded in any other manner than holy. He is to be treated as one who is wholly separate from all other created entities. His holiness is not compromised or tainted in any way, nor may it be. He says He must be regarded as such or there are consequences. Not that God will have consequences, but that He will either be regarded as holy, or make Himself holy, forcibly, upon those who approach Him. This is not something restricted to Israel, but for all people for all time. Is it not a wonder, then, that our very prayers are fashioned by the first petition to hallow the name of God in the Lord's prayer. It ought to be the desire of the believer in any age to hallow, and pray for the hallowness of God's name everywhere.

Who is to regard God as holy? In this verse it is specifically those who draw near. This is another interpretive help by the translators. The word is qarowb (kaw-robe') which means kinship, lovers or friends. Those who claim to draw near to God are the lovers or friends of God, at least by profession. Thus, those who draw near are those who claim to know Him and follow Him. God will, then, be glorified in those people by their special regard for Him as holy. They know they must do this and attempt to set Him apart as such. Either in the people or by the people, either in mercy or by judgment, God will be kabad (kaw-bad') made holy. He will be honoured, or One who gains glory. This is not something that might happen, or could happen when the Lord's people offer up worship to Him in whatsoever manner they do, but that either in mercy, or in judgment, God will obtain, receive, and must have the honor due His name.