Inconsistency proves a devotion to an emotion instead of a logical ideal
(Note to the reader: If this is the first rebuttal you have read by me then hello! Please be aware that this article does not reflect the tone of all my other rebuttals. I was deeply concerned for my sister, Natalie, on some of the teachings she is promoting are in danger of heresy. I don’t use that word lightly. I don’t use it to slam anyone I disagree with. I reserve that word for only for those teachings that seek to change the message of the Gospel of Christ. I would encourage you to check out my other rebuttals/articles. Hopefully this is helpful to all my dear brothers and sisters in Christ. It is my desire that you would be chaste virgins to Christ. Natalie: As always I’m praying for you and your brother. I hope that you grow in your knowledge of the truth, intensity for your zeal for Christ, and power from the Holy Ghost. May we all become shining lights in a dark world for God’s glory alone!)
Other articles/rebuttals:
“Should Godly Women Wear Pants? - A Response to " Can Godly Women Wear Pants"”
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CFFO5m85EnhJ9H_DlBJ3GYCUehpMD89jlwjJAvY7BP0/edit
“Breaking Up With the Holiness Movement” (It’s not what you think)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B04-riEdQoROS2tNcS1NTnhVLVpSNTQ1V19Ub0RfWlAxYTZv/view?usp=sharing
I must say I was extremely disappointed in this article. In the past, I have greatly enjoyed (although I did not agree) with the articles. I felt they got to the heart of the issues. They were clear. They most importantly were BIBLICAL. I felt that the authors of this website actually were trying to be Berean. However this article falls so short of the “standard” (pun intended) of the previous articles. The explanation of Galatians 1 & 2 was frankly heretical. I honestly don’t know of a more brotherly way of describing it. There does not appear to be a consistent line between justification and sanctification. Instead the author will make statements like:
Natalie: Heaven will only be obtained by His holiness, and we are partakers of His holiness only by faith, never works.
vs
Natalie: Holiness only comes from a relationship with Christ
These two statements are OPPOSITE of one another. Which is it? I feel that the bible passages used are classic cases of isogesis:
“While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, isogesis or eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text.”
I was truly hoping that a biblical study of sanctification would be the meat of this article! The opposite of error is not more error. It’s not passionate articles. Instead it’s truth. What I felt was given was cotton candy not steak. I will attempt to summarize my main contentions with this article:
- A failure to place a CLEAR line between justification (escaping God’s wrath) & sanctification (becoming like God as a result of God’s new nature).
- The lack of clear teaching on biblical sanctification. Sadly the word “sanctification” is no where used in this article. In fact the classic texts that deal with sanctification were not even referenced! (Galatians 5, Romans 8, Ephesians 5 to name a few)
- The heretical abuse of Galatians 1 & 2. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and many others are rolling in their graves.
- The obvious inconsistency within the author’s own logic:
“Responsibility of every Christian to discern its application in their own lives”
Vs
Natalie: “Lastly, don’t look down upon or disfellowship a brother with different convictions from yourself. If he is living in blatant sin or contradicting a clear biblical rule, that’s one thing, but please, stay aware of the distinction between plain biblical rules and your personal application of principles.”
So which is it? Are Christians allowed to exhort one another to higher degrees of sanctification or not? If yes then where do you draw the line? Is it just the standards the author doesn’t like? Is it “just” the inner darkness that matters? What about the outer darkness? What about wearing bikinis to the beach? Does the pastor have the right to lovingly deal with this situation? I’m not saying this to attack Natalie’s character by any means. The reason she is inconsistent is because she has been hurt. This is why intelligent people become logically inconsistent. However the answer isn’t to burn biblical standards because we don’t like them. The answer is to remove leaders from churches who are not acting in biblically loving manners, realizing that the body of Christ is not based upon the “britches” and the “skirts”, and a logical (systematic) approach to convictions.
- The possibly heretical contradiction between: “relationship makes us holy in God’s sight” vs “faith makes us holy in God’s sight”
I want to make my position clear. I am NOT standing for “holiness standards”. I am standing for:
- The right to exhort fellow brothers and sisters to higher degrees of biblical sanctification.
- The ability to apply biblical principles to modern life. What is a biblical principle? It is a biblical concept or idea. A good example would be the “click bait” for this article: rings/jewelry. The scripture that is often abused is 1 Timothy 2:9 & 1 Peter 3:3. Is the author stating that this conviction is because gold is immoral? What is the “purpose” for this conviction? In context it is plain that the author wants his brothers and sisters to walk holy in their society. Both apostles want the “inner man” to be seen. However they have an issue. The women in their churches were immodest, bling consumed, and covered in gold dust. (Sounds like they just went to a Todd Bentley meeting to me) What was the result? The outside was so emphasized that the inside could NOT be seen. Instead of drawing others eyes to their inner sanctified nature, they were drawing them to the outside. This is a biblical principle: if we are to properly show the world Christ’s nature we must dress in such a way that draws attention to character more than our costumes. Does this mean that the wedding band is immoral? Does it cause others in the world to focus on our outside instead of inside? I leave it for the reader to decide. I have given this example to demonstrate the need within the Holiness movement. We must think deeply about what the purpose is for our convictions. Do we want to live separate lives unto God or simply conform and promote traditional standards? The only way to approach this subject is to diligently search scripture. See below for a link to an article I wrote on the subject.
Shameless Plug:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B04-riEdQoROS2tNcS1NTnhVLVpSNTQ1V19Ub0RfWlAxYTZv/view?usp=sharing
- The right to “approve that which is good” and “hate that which is evil”. (Philippians 1:10) (1 Thessalonians 5:22)
- A clear understanding of the methods of Christian sanctification. The author makes it sound like the only tool for sanctification is our “relationship” with God. However the bible does not promote this idea. It gives multiple tools for Christian growth. Some of which the author would disagree with: following the example & direction of elder Christians (Hebrews 13:7), the encouragement and exhortation of fellow Christian brothers and sisters (Hebrews 3:13), Scripture ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17), the spirit’s leading ie a “relationship with God” (Romans 8:13). You may say: “Lance the author surely would not disagree with these verses”. You are correct. However as soon as we turn and begin to execute these methods of sanctification we become “extra biblical”. Why? Because any standard that even smells of Pentecostal Holiness is extra biblical. I say this sarcastically of course. However it is plain from reading this article that the author is either unsure how to classify “extra biblical applications” or they are inconsistent due to painful experiences. I believe it is the later option. In the end, truth must be believed regardless of its origin. David was an adulterer but the greatest promises we have of the Messiah are in the Psalms. Paul was a former murder yet he wrote the greatest works on salvation by grace through faith. An argument, ideal, conviction, or truth must stand on its own two feet independent of the character of the person telling it. Even if that truth is a holiness standard. Reader are you Berean or merely anti-holiness standards?
- Justification (escaping God’s wrath) by true faith ALONE.
The Danger of Compromising Holiness
The Relationship of Holiness and Rules
God is holy, and He is the only being in the universe who IS holiness. In fact, when I was originally asked to leave a holiness outreach I served with, the reactions of my non-denominational and Baptist friends were worthy of recording. I told them exactly what I had been told by my church authorities, “We’re holiness from the tops of our heads to the soles of our feet…We can’t have you working here because you’re not 100% holiness.” “Not 100% holiness?!” My other Christian friends sputtered, as their mouths dropped open, “What on the earth?! Only God is 100% holiness! You can’t be expected to be a walking, talking attribute of God!”
Lance: This is precisely what we are called to be. It is commanded by the apostles that we be living temples (peter verse) of God’s presence. We are supposed to manifest His attributes.
I had to laugh at their misunderstanding. I tried to explain that the authorities really only meant I was required to believe their standards were biblically mandated. However, the dynamic reactions did make me start thinking. In all my Holiness Movement lingo, was I guilty of undermining the biblical definition of holiness?
I should take a time-out here, and clarify that I don’t believe any of my Christian friends in the Holiness Movement would disagree with the above portion of this article. However, there is a very common abuse of the Holiness Movement’s doctrine, which I have seen over and over and over again. It is this wide-spread abuse of their doctrine (not the proper use of it) which I would like to tackle in the remainder of this article. To all my friends in the Movement, if I’m wrong and what I address next is actually the proper use of your doctrine, please correct me!
Moving on. If Christians can’t be be the essence of holiness, what can we be? We can be in a deepening, daily relationship with the source of holiness, our holy God. As we grow in this relationship, He will continue to draw us to Himself and conform us into His image. One of my favorite definitions of holiness, as it pertains to humans, was given in a sermon by Jeff Pollard:
“Holiness is a progressive and on-going work of God’s Spirit in which He continually renews and transforms us into Christ-likeness…Holiness in this sense is empowered by the Holy Ghost, informed by the Word of God, and manifested by faith, repentance and loving obedience.”
Because of how much God loves us and how much He desires what’s best for us, He has given us His Word and commanded us to obey it. God is the ultimate authority. So, if we believe on Him it only follows logically that we will make a significant effort to obey Him. Studying and living out the scripture will be an outflow of an authentic relationship with God. Don’t be confused, it is still not obedience that holiness comes from, our relationship with Christ is where holiness comes from, and loving obedience is just the evidence of that relationship. One cannot say they love Christ and then continually choose to break His rules. This would be as ridiculous as a wife who says she loves her husband, but then continually has adulterous affairs.
Biblical Rules Vs. Personal Applications
There are two primary categories of obedience to God:
1. There is obedience to the clear rules of scripture.
2. There is obedience to the Spirit of God as He convicts us on how to apply the principles of scripture.
There are many sin-lists in the New Testament which are very clear rules that apply to every single believer. For example:
When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: -Colossians 3:4-10
Equally important, there are lists of rules for what believers must do. Here is one from the same passage as the above sin-list:
Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. -Colossians 3:12-16
Every believer with a genuine relationship with Christ will make a continual effort to follow the above rules and many more like them (to see more, check out New Testament Evidences of Personal Holiness).
In contrast, the applications of biblical principles may very well differ from Christian to Christian. For example, I know of many Christian women who believe they should apply the biblical principle of modesty/simplicity by only wearing plain, home-spun dresses. I commend the heart behind this practice. However, I have no such conviction, and believe I am sufficiently applying biblical principle of modesty/simplicity by wearing store-bought clothes that keep me covered and aren’t flashy or overly expensive. We are both applying the same principle, and obeying our application as an outflow of relationship with Christ. Does my liberty to wear store-bought clothing make them any less holy for wearing home-spun clothing? Absolutely not. Does their conviction to wear home-spun dresses make me any less holy for wearing store-bought clothing? Absolutely not. We are both holy through faith in Christ and Christ alone, we merely have come to different conclusions about how to apply a biblical principle. Since scripture does not mandate or forbid either application, both options are totally legitimate and within the bounds of Christian liberty.
Lance: I believe a category error is present here. Modesty is not given for the woman’s sake ALONE. It is also meant to be an outward manifestation to a lost world of a God given character. (1 Timothy 2:9 & 1 Peter 3:3) The reason why a woman who is wearing a homespun dress cannot exhort her christian sister to do the same is because BOTH articles of clothing demonstrate modesty, none costly array, and femininity. Neither conviction is more “holy” than the other because they perform the PURPOSE in the outside world. If they are both modest & none expensive then they have adequately shown the world Christian principles. Is it possible that a woman could feel to wear homespun dresses over store bought? Of course! However this is a personal struggle with vanity not an external/universal issue of showing the world Christian principles.
Stricter Doesn’t Mean Holier
It is very important to realize that the stricter/harder application is not necessarily the “holier” application. If stricter is holier, then gloves are more holy than only long-sleeves, veils are more holy than only uncut hair, burkas are more holy than only high necklines, covering feet is more holy than only covering legs, closed-toed shoes are more holy than sandals, going to church daily is more holy than three times a week, tithing 70% is more holy than 10%, and the list could go on and on and on.
Lance: I would agree. When it comes to exhorting one another to greater holiness we must keep in mind the PURPOSE of the principle/conviction. This defines for us the limits of our conviction. The bible is against sensuality and for modesty. Why? Because it shows that a Christian woman believes her inner character should be the leading feature of her life. Therefore her outer clothing should reflect this. Long sleeves are NOT more holy than short sleeves. Why? Because one is not more sensual than the other. The bible is not against beauty. In fact the bible constantly promotes godly beauty of both inner and outer form. This is why a burka would not be supported. In the end we must define our convictions based upon their purpose. How do we do this? We go back to biblical principles and ask the purpose of the convictions so we might demonstrate God’s character in the world we live in.
In the above example, my Holiness friends would agree that wearing home-spun dresses would not make me any holier or any more pleasing to Christ. They realize that I have absolutely no conviction or logic or prodding of the Spirit which makes me believe I should apply modesty in such a manner. So, for Natalie Mayo, wearing a home-spun dress would not be an outflow of my relationship to Christ. It wouldn’t bring me an iota closer to Him, or help me to obey Him the slightest bit more, it would just be an unnecessary burden, a meaningless work, and make me feel pointlessly odd.
Unfortunately, it can be much harder for someone from a church with strict externals to apply this concept to other areas. Take the issue of women’s pants (Can a Godly Woman Wear Pants?). In scripture, there is a very undefined concept of modesty, as well the general teaching that we should embrace our biological gender. Many Holiness Christians would believe that the best way to apply these principles is by women wearing skirts. That’s a legitimate application, and I commend them for following through with their personal discernment. However, there is a vast majority of Christians who have no such belief. In biblical times, men and women wore the same type of garment (robes) and many Christians find no reason to believe men and women ought to wear different types of garments today.
Lance: For those interested in my response to the article “Can a Godly Woman Wear Pants” see the link below.
Natalie: “However, there is a vast majority of Christians who have no such belief. In biblical times, men and women wore the same type of garment (robes) and many Christians find no reason to believe men and women ought to wear different types of garments today.”
Lance: As I stated in my response, this was acceptable because within that culture gender distinction was shown by subtle differences in their robes. However, within American culture the exclusive femnine clothing is STILL skirts. Why are the applications of other cultures being forced upon American culture to justify pants?
There is still much backlash from Holiness Christians, saying, “No! If you really loved Jesus, you would choose the holier option!” My question is, “How is it holier?” The fact that things cannot make us holy seems to be lost when it comes to any controversial standards. Holiness only comes from a relationship with Christ, and obedience to Him is an outflow of relationship with Him. If any standard is not directly in the Word of God, and a person has absolutely no conviction/belief that the best way to apply a biblical principle would be with that standard, then how on earth could following that standard make them holier? It can’t. Unless wearing skirts is an outflow of a relationship with Christ, then to do such a work is merely to pleasing men. That’s not holiness, that’s peer pressure.
Natalie: The fact that things cannot make us holy seems to be lost when it comes to any controversial standards.
Lance: Correct. Because in fact NOTHING man does can make him holy. Being a virgin does not make you holy. Being sexually pure does not make you holy. Being sober does not make you holy. This is an obvious category error. When we believe in Christ we become HOLY. Nothing else is sufficient to cause men to both escape God’s wrath and be made righteous in God’s sight (Galatians 2:16-17). HOWEVER because the Spirit of God has invaded us we are to demonstrate His nature within our society. We do this by seeking to demonstrate Him by God given principles. Why? Because we are like GOD! We should bear His attributes. If we only apply scripture along the strict lines being presented then Christians CANNOT exhort one another to fulfill their God given destiny. Which is to be a Holiness conformist? A skirt wearing pentecostal? Absolutely not. Instead we conform to Christ and demonstrate Him within our culture. (Eph 5:8)
Natalie: It can’t. Unless wearing skirts is an outflow of a relationship with Christ, then to do such a work is merely to pleasing men. That’s not holiness, that’s peer pressure.
Lance: Absolutely. However if we simply conform to the NEW none holiness churches/groups how is this any better? I will point out however that we have the right to exhort our brothers or sisters to biblical holiness, regardless if their “relationship” is leading them that direction or not. Example: “I don’t ‘feel’ there is anything wrong with my smoking marijuana. There is nothing in scripture to forbid me! Stop hindering my liberty!” Do we have legitimate reason to apply biblical principles to this brother with his weed habit? If so then upon what grounds? If the author’s reasoning above is applied then this CANNOT be done.
From beards to wedding rings, from makeup to cap-sleeves, any item preached against without a scriptural rule will be adamantly condemned as “less holy,” thus, it is assumed that giving it up is more pleasing to Christ. How? If giving such up was best for every believer, why didn’t God add these things to the sin lists? Makeup, beards, rings-these were all very popular in the New Testament era. Any of the New Testament authors could have easily taught against these things. But, they didn’t. So, why do we? Even if they aren’t the best options, the only way that giving them up is more holy is if a person does so out of genuine conviction. If they give them up because everyone else in their church does, that’s not holiness. That’s social conformity. (Does Jesus Obscure His Commandments)
Natalie: If giving such up was best for every believer, why didn’t God add these things to the sin lists?
Lance: I will point out that the lists given are EXTREMELY broad. If we use the logic being applied then multitudes of situations within the Roman empire would be allowed! What about public bathing? Often both sexes would bath in the nude! However no SPECIFIC application is given for this. What about the gladiatorial games? Could anyone see Paul condoning this behavior? Yet again no specific application is given for this. The apostle Paul knew that his readers would apply the biblical principles presented and the leadership would seek to exhort their believers to follow these principles in their daily living. It is the only logical conclusion. Unless the author is claiming that Paul would condone this behavior.
Works cannot make anyone holy, rules cannot make anyone holy, things cannot make anyone holy. Holiness comes from Christ. If there is a person who is not led by Christ to give up beards, makeup, rings or cap-sleeves, then, for that person, giving them up is a meaningless work.
Lance: (Yes I did copy and paste. Stop judging me ;P) Correct. Because in fact NOTHING man does can make him holy. Being a virgin does not make you holy. Being sexually pure does not make you holy. Being sober does not make you holy. This is an obvious category error. When we believe in Christ we become HOLY. Nothing else is sufficient to cause men to both escape God’s wrath and be made righteous in God’s sight (Galatians 2:16-17). HOWEVER because the Spirit of God has invaded us we are to demonstrate His nature within our society. We do this by seeking to demonstrate Him by God given principles. Why? Because we are like GOD! We should bear His attributes. If we only apply scripture along the strict lines being presented then Christians CANNOT exhort one another to fulfill their God given destiny. Which is to be a Holiness conformist? A skirt wearing pentecostal? Absolutely not. Instead we conform to Christ and demonstrate Him within our culture. (Eph 5:8)
The Danger of Enforcing Personal Applications
If there is one thing I have witnessed over and over in regard to holiness standards, it’s been good-intentioned Christians handing a list of extra-biblical rules to someone who (they believe) needs some more holiness. The thought behind this practice is, “Here, just follow all my opinions about how to apply biblical principles and you’ll have holiness.” Can you spot the danger? This idea precariously teeters over the chasm of being made holy through works. It’s especially harmful to young people and new converts who are not spiritually mature. Too often, their relationship with Christ, the real source of holiness, is short-circuited and traded off for a list of rules.
Natalie: The thought behind this practice is, “Here, just follow all my opinions about how to apply biblical principles and you’ll have holiness.” Can you spot the danger? This idea precariously teeters over the chasm of being made holy through works. It’s especially harmful to young people and new converts who are not spiritually mature. Too often, their relationship with Christ, the real source of holiness, is short-circuited and traded off for a list of rules.
Lance: I hope I am misreading the above statement. Is it being implied that a “relationship with God” can make a person holy or save them? May I point out this is EQUALLY dangerous as saying that “good works” save you? All that has been done is a swapping out of how a man can save himself! NEITHER standards NOR a relationship with God can save a man from God’s wrath. This error seems to be filling this entire article. How are we saved from God’s wrath? Standards + faith in Christ? Relationship with God + faith in Christ? OR Faith in Christ ALONE.
Instead of learning to grapple with scripture for themselves, instead of learning to study deeply, pray fervently, develop their own convictions, and be led by the Spirit, they are very conveniently supplied with “the end goal.” Spiritual maturity is skewed into being defined by things, things you do, things you don’t do, and this nicely formed list of things is received as a fantastic short-cut to spiritual growth.
Natalie: Spiritual maturity is skewed into being defined by things, things you do, things you don’t do, and this nicely formed list of things is received as a fantastic short-cut to spiritual growth.
Lance: Doesn’t Hebrews speak of being able to discern good and evil? I don’t believe the writer of Hebrews means doctrine alone. I will say that those in our congregations MUST come to own their convictions as their own. However, if your child was eating cyanide laced candy and you said nothing would this not be PERVERSE! “Well I don’t want to short circuit their growth in God” There are times we must jump into the fray and knock the poisoned “liberty” from the hands of the child. This must be done lovingly. We must allow people to grow into their convictions and understandings of scripture. Dying to self is not an easy process. It is EXTREMELY painful. Therefore, it must be done slowly and carefully. However if we make all application of scripture a personal conviction then please do your pastor a favor: don’t go to church Sunday. Why waste his time and yours? You aren’t going to apply the truth he gives unless you “feel” in your “relationship” that God is calling you to lay down your evil actions.
Question: Can’t we just preach/exhort the scriptures that the applications are plain?
Answer: If the narrow view of scripture application displayed in this article is lived out, then NO application of scripture can be applied to any person even if it is explicitly mentioned in scripture. Why? Because the lists given in the New Testament themselves are EXTREMELY broad. How exactly do you define “sexual immorality”? How do you define “gluttony”? How do you define “covetousness”? No specific applications are given for these sins in scripture. How much is too much? Does this mean your pastor is not allowed to preach on these topics? Is he allowed to only say “don’t be a glutton” but as you stuff your 10 burrito down your pie hole he is “hindering your liberty” if he says anything?
This results in young Christians living in a shell of other people’s opinions, deceiving themselves and others with facade of spiritual maturity. Meanwhile, their walk with Christ suffers greatly and their muscles of discernment lie shriveled in atrophy. Time and again, I’ve seen these Christians fall into terrible sin, go off the deep end, only for their authorities to say, “And that’s what happens when you leave holiness.” No! My insides would scream, “That’s what happens when you hand someone a list of your opinions instead of ever discipling them!” (Replacing Rules with Discipleship.)
Lance: I without question agree that discipleship is necessary. I without question agree that giving people a list of “convictions” without ALSO teaching them how to form their convictions produces weak Christians. However the solution is not to forbid us from exhorting each other to higher heights of holiness! We have to be consistent. If we can tell a Christian from a homosexual background that they should no longer practice this form of immorality, then when can we also tell a young lady to seek to dress as feminine and modestly as possible? I understand this shouldn’t be an overnight change. I believe that growth in some areas needs to be saved as we deal with the “bigger” issues.
It turns out that I am not the only person this practice has frustrated. Let’s take a look at Paul’s reaction when he found out Peter had began practicing unnecessary rules in the Old Testament, and even worse, handing out these rules to others:
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. -Galatians 2:11-16
Were the rules addressed in Galatians different from the rules typically handed out today? Yes. However, the concept is the same. There were “spiritually mature” elders who were cherry-picking and dictating which parts of the Old Testament the new converts should follow in order to be holy and pleasing to Christ. (Note, these were at least Old Testament rules, not extra-biblical ones.) Peter was afraid, so he switched behaviors and started practicing rules that were not an outflow of his relationship with Christ, but rather an attempt to please religious men.
Natalie: Yes. However, the concept is the same. There were “spiritually mature” elders who were cherry-picking and dictating which parts of the Old Testament the new converts should follow in order to be holy and pleasing to Christ.
Lance: ….That’s not at all what was happening here. The issue was that the Jewish Christians were not walking according to the Gospel. They had started to cave into Old Testament rituals as means of JUSTIFICATION. This passage in context has nothing to do with sanctification. They weren’t adding rules to help men to walk more holy before God. Instead they were removing themselves from the presence of their fellow Gentile Christains because they deemed them to be “sinners” (Psalms 1:1) as a result of not being circumcised. Paul then launches from this story into showing the Galatians that NO works of man can cause him to escape God’s wrath. (ie be Justified) It is FAITH ALONE that causes us to escape God’s wrath. Not faith + good works. Not faith + law. Not faith + relationship. If Natalie is implying that Paul in this passage was teaching that men are justified (escape God’s wrath) by having convictions that are a result of their “outflow of their relationship with Christ” then this is heretical. This passage is teaching the very OPPOSITE of that implication.
Worst of all, he compelled other believers to also follow Old Testament rules and please these men. Paul was outraged, and rightfully so. What Peter was doing was not pursuing holiness, it was distorting holiness and undermining faith in Christ. Furthermore, please note that the bad doctrine was not salvation by works, but rather sanctification/maturity by works. Check out a following section:
O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? -Galatians 3:1-3
Natalie: What Peter was doing was not pursuing holiness, it was distorting holiness and undermining faith in Christ. Furthermore, please note that the bad doctrine was not salvation by works, but rather sanctification/maturity by works.
Lance: The rest of chapter 3 CONSTANTLY talks about justification not sanctification. I don’t think any honest reader can walk away from this passage and think that Paul was dealing with Christian growth or sanctification. In the verses shown Paul is demonstrating to the Galatians that they can receive nothing from God by any other means other than faith. He then turns and asks “how did you become new creatures in Christ? Why did God send the Holy Ghost and work work miracles among you? Did you somehow earn this divine favor by works? NO! Instead you believed God and have received His spirit. Having begun this race by faith do you think God has changed His mind? Does God’s grace need works added to it to make it complete (perfect)? What is God’s CURRENCY? What does he require from mankind to be perfect in His sight? What pleases God? The answer: Faith.”
Talk about a scathing rebuke. Paul thought this idea of obtaining Christian perfection through following religious leader’s rules was ludicrous, and he had no qualms about saying so. It makes you wonder what he would think of the way certain standards are taught today. There’s more, though, look at the way he described this teaching, as well as the concept of pleasing men, in the first chapter:
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 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. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. -Galatians 1:6-10
Paul didn’t just think following rules to please men was a bad idea, he slammed it as contrary to serving Christ. Oh, yeah, and the whole idea that we can be made perfect through rules? He called it a perversion of the gospel and put it under a curse. That’s as serious as the epistles get.
Natalie: He called it a perversion of the gospel and put it under a curse. That’s as serious as the epistles get.
Lance: May I also say it is a perversion of the Gospel to state that we earn God’s righteousness by a “relationship” with God?
May I also point out that the apostle does not put the “idea that we can be made perfect (mature) through rules” under a curse. He puts ANY OTHER GOSPEL under a curse. I would implore the reader to go study this passage out for themselves. Thankfully I happened to be studying through Galatians when I was reading this article. Please be Berean and don’t be deceived.
In the end the entire trip to the beginning of Galatians to prove the author’s point that leadership/fellow brothers do not have the right to exhort one another to higher degrees of biblical holiness is a farce. This passage has nothing to do with the issue at hand. In fact it SUPPORTS the OPPOSITE of the author’s intention. How so? Because in this passage Paul EXHORTS Peter to stop committing a certain sin. Why did Paul inhibit Peter’s “liberty” (sin)? Because there is an exact verse from the Old Testament forbidding it? NO! Because Peter’s actions were not in accordance with the Biblical principles of Gospel.
The Danger of Expecting Others to Develop Your Convictions
Many Christians who emphasize a strict outward standard would agree with the statements so far, and yet, they’d add a serious caveat, “It’s true that we must let young Christians discern how to apply scripture for themselves, and not just given them our own rules. But, as they grow in Christ, they’ll come to be convicted of the same things we have been. We’ll know they’re mature when they look like us.” Knowing they’re mature because they are following biblical rules is one thing, claiming that they’re mature because they’ve come to have the same extra-biblical opinions as ourselves is circular reasoning. It goes like this, “Spiritual maturity includes having the same opinions on holiness standards that I do, I know this because every Christian that becomes spiritually mature comes to these standards; I know they’re spiritually mature when they have them because spiritual maturity includes having the same opinions on holiness standards that I do.” Dizzy yet?
Natalie: We’ll know they’re mature when they look like us.” Knowing they’re mature because they are following biblical rules is one thing, claiming that they’re mature because they’ve come to have the same extra-biblical opinions as ourselves is circular reasoning.
Lance: I will say that not all mature Christians are going to have the exact same convictions (application) of biblical principles to their lives:
Some (but not ALL) convictions/ applications are personal. Why? Because they deal with a local manifestation not a universal condition (principle). For instance: some Christians may feel prideful because of a certain article of clothing (store bought dresses would be a wonderful example). Are these dresses modest? Yes. Are they “costly array”? No, the world would not see such as a costly garment. However could a young lady take pride in such a dress? Of course. Could this be a legitimate conviction that she should puts on either indefinitely or temporarily? Of course. Many readers of this have experienced something very similar to this. However, this is not a conviction that can be universally applied to all young women. Why? Because not all women struggle with this form of vanity. I hope the reader can see the difference I am presenting here. There is an INNER holiness that ONLY for the individual. There is an OUTER holiness that is performed for the world.
However does this mean that there will not be universal “extra biblical” (which its not but oh well) applications that all mature believers will follow? Can any mature woman in Christ honestly believe a bikini is modest form of dress?
Question: Lance doesn’t the bible already forbid immodesty so therefore this is not “extra biblical” ie not SPECIFICALLY mentioned in scripture?
Answer: As Natalie has stated previously in this article there is NO exact definition for modesty in the bible. Therefore all believers are free to define modesty on their own terms! Who is to say a bikini is immodest? Where does the bible give an EXACT definition for this? This is the problem with reasoning being utilized. Not only does it forbid actual application of biblical concepts, it also prevents believers from being able to apply general commands given in the Bible itself!
Question: Lance shouldn’t mature believers who have been in church for years know? Shouldn’t the Spirit convict them? Why then is there a need for us to exhort one another if the spirit already performs this work?
Answer: Last night browsing through my facebook I saw a friend of mine. She is in her 40s and has attended church for over 15+ years faithfully. She has stuck through some very difficult circumstances in her life. However, her profile picture has been changed to her in a bikini. Why? Because she has been deceived. It is VERY possible for those who have been in church for years to be deceived. The bible shows this in numerous places. Below is a well known example that comes to mind:
Hebrews 5
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
In the passage mentioned above the recipients of the letter had fallen away from the teaching of the Apostles on some of the basic doctrines of the faith. The result was those believers who should have been mature had been deceived into believing MANY false teachings. These had returned to the law to be justified. It is possible for mature believers to be deceived. This is why we MUST constantly:
Romans 12:2
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
The world is trying to conform us. What are they trying to conform us to? Does Paul just state that our bodies need to be conformed? NO! The mind must be renewed. This is why we must seek to learn the principles of the word and live them out. This is why we MUST exhort one another to Christian holiness.
Hebrews 3
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
1 Peter 5
5 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
1 Thessalonians 4
4 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.
2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification…
Hebrews 13
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
How can we exhort one another in the difficult age we live in WITHOUT applying biblical principles to modern issues?
Question: The author doesn’t have an issue with applying biblical principles. They just have issues with applications that aren’t biblical. Why are you arguing this point if you agree?
Answer: The question is what is meant by “applications that aren’t biblical”? It appears the author has a double standard. Throughout many of these articles they don’t appear to have an issue applying scripture in extra biblical ways to general commands/principles. If I read the author correctly in their article on pants, then they believe most jean pants are immodest. I would agree with this statement. However why does the author consider it acceptable to derive extra biblical application from scriptures that don’t give exact definitions of modesty? How did the author come to this conclusion WITHOUT “extra biblical reasoning” ie biblical principles with logic.
Question: The author wasn’t stating they believe Christian women shouldn’t wear jeans. Instead they were showing that for their own personal reasons they don’t feel jean pants are modest. Why can’t we just let this be personal?
Answer: This is EXACTLY my point. When we subscribe to the narrow method of application of scripture given the only result is anarchy. No one has the right to convict or exhort his brother to do anything. A preacher cannot preach on ANY sin. An elder can’t exhort on ANY issue.
Question: What about all the abuse! Doesn’t this just open the doors for legalistic pastors/elders to control congregations?
Answer: Men will always abuse truth. The Mormons abuse the doctrine of sanctification every day. Many denominations abuse the doctrine of justification by faith. However does the abuse justify the REMOVAL of these truths? Does the abuse of ignorant men justify the REMOVAL of exhortation? The REMOVAL of men “seeing our good works and glorify God”? I believe the Apostle Paul’s just reply would be: God FORBID!
In contrast to this idea, Romans 14 blatantly teaches that spiritually mature Christians will come to different conclusions on how to apply biblical principles. Check it out:
Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks…But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. -Romans 14:3-6, 10
This passage is chock full of contradicting applications of biblical principles. And, do you see how Paul responds? He doesn’t set everyone straight on which person’s convictions are the holiest. He says for each person to be fully persuaded of his own belief, and to respect his brother’s contradicting belief. That’s a day and night different from expecting your brother to “grow up” and look like you.
Lance: What does the rest of the passage state?
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Is the situation at hand that two people have different convictions but Paul is stating “Do whatever you feel like! Don’t command anybody to do anything! Don’t exhort anybody to do anything! Both positions are equally valid!” Absolutely not. He proves to the reader that those who were abstaining from meat did so as a result of a weaker understanding of Biblical principles:
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Let’s put this whole passage in context:
This passage is part of a long list of items that Paul has commanded the church at Rome to obey as they pursued to offer their lives as living sacrifices. (It’s interesting that in this section Paul felt he had the right to exhort other believers to greater holiness upon biblical principles. However this is the very passage being used to REFUTE the right to exhort one another by the author) This list is given after the exhortation to present ourselves as living sacrifices to God & seeking to be seperate from the World. However Paul was afraid. The Gentile believers at Rome were not following the biblical principles of loving their fellow brothers in Christ. Why? Because these new believers were still following Jewish traditions. They were not following these traditions out of an attempt to JUSTIFY themselves (escape God’s wrath and become holy in God’s sight). Instead they were doing this out of their love and submission to the Lord. (14:6,7, 18, 23) Was Paul stating that both options were equally valid? If so then why does he prove that no foods are of themselves unclean? What was Paul’s point? His desire was to preserve the love and unity of the church while the ignorant believers were in transition into a higher form of Christanity. These were NOT mature believers coming to different conclusions as is claimed by this article. I will point out that even IF this was the case, then this situation would still not be suitable to disprove the biblical mandate for believers to exhort one another to holiness. Why? Because these are personal convictions. These immature believers were acting out of their love for God and adding weights to themselves that are not consistent with biblical principles. However this passage has nothing to do with behaviors that affect our testimony or other believers. In fact Paul’s command to the mature Gentile believers was to compromise with their weaker brethren! Why? Because he did not want their liberty to become a stumbling block to others. This story shows PRECISELY where to draw the line at personal liberty and personal convictions. When it affects those OUTSIDE of ourselves THEN we are absolutely obligated to love them with our actions. We seek to lay NO stumbling block before fellow believers or a lost and dying world. Therefore: don’t drink. Why? Because it’s a stumbling block to the world. Don’t swear. Don’t tattoo yourself. This principle goes on and on. Dear reader if you desire to truly be Berean then hear my words. Only in this way can you both discern and SUBMIT to scripture.
The Danger of Backwards Emphasis
It wouldn’t be fair to close this article without pointing out something extremely important. The Holiness standards, which immediately come to mind as a measuring stick of maturity, actually have a completely backwards emphasis from the scriptural standards. Holiness standards have everything to do with externals, and it would be easy to claim that 80% of them have to do with personal appearance. Have you ever compared this to what the biblical authors emphasized in regards to holiness? Easily less than 5% had to do with appearance. And, no, this was not because the first century had such holy cultures that there was no need to dress more modestly than the average Joe. These were cultures that embraced public, mixed bathing, as well as many other forms of nudity, not to mention rampant sexual immorality. Have you ever seen statues from this time period? Enough said. Inspired by the Holy Ghost, the biblical authors still spent very little time on outward appearance.
Natalie: Easily less than 5% had to do with appearance.
Lance: My I also point out that regardless of how much or little something is mentioned in scripture does not make it untrue. How much space is given to the trinity in scripture? Does this make this doctrine any less true? If anyone watches debates with cultists (Mormon, Jehovah Witness, Oneness Pentecostal, etc), you quickly find that the message of the Gospel DRASTICALLY changes when you remove the trinity from the discussion. When you change the biblical definition of Christ’s divinity, you also change the nature of his atonement. Don’t believe me? Go listen to some debates and comeback. The discussion ALWAYS ends up at the trinity.
Instead, they placed heavy emphasis on love, peace, unity, truthfulness, thankfulness, faithfulness and many more internal virtues. When they spoke of things to abstain from, they spoke against pride, promiscuity, greediness, idolatry, covetousness, gossiping, lying and other such sins. (For a detailed study, check out New Testament Evidences of Personal Holiness.) What would happen if we only preached against beards as much as Paul did? What would happen if we only preached against makeup as much as Peter? What would happen if we only preached against jewelry as much as James and John? Would we still be able to keep our churches up to par with Holiness standards? I think not.
Natalie: Instead, they placed heavy emphasis on love, peace, unity, truthfulness, thankfulness, faithfulness and many more internal virtues.
Lance: This is absolutely correct. The reason for this is because the fruit of the spirit is the evidence of true maturity. Why? Because as Christians we have received the spirit of God. Therefore we begin to bear his nature. This is the process of sanctification. All of these that are mentioned are fruits of salvation. Unfortunately the word “sanctification” is no where mentioned in this article. Neither are the classic texts that speak of this process. Instead it seems that the author claims that we are “saved” then we work to become “holy”. However scripture states that we become holy by faith alone and then working that holiness out by the process of sanctification (Philippians 2:12-13). Again, frequency or lack thereof does not prove an item to be true or untrue. Homosexuality is rarely metioned in the bible. If one listens to debates on this issue, this is one of the favorite lines of proponents in favor of homosexual behavior. Frequency does not determine the truth or untruth of a biblical standard.
A Deadlier Compromise
Holy, holy, holy… Holy in love, holy in power, holy in justice, holy in mercy. His majestic, dazzling purity fills the universe. His glorious righteousness transcends anything humans can imagine. Utter perfection, divine splendor, breath-taking beauty. Totally separated from everything fallen and sinful, completely in a class of His own. This is the Almighty God, Creator of the universe, Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. He IS holiness.
Catching a glimpse of holiness sends humans to their knees, if they don’t die first. It fills us with a realization of our own wretchedness, sinfulness and unworthiness. There is absolutely nothing we could do to earn God’s favor. Works, rules, things-these will never gain us favor with holiness of this magnitude. The only restoration would be for Him to bear the punishment for our sin, that we might be clothed in His righteousness. Thanks be to God, that’s exactly what He did. Christ was crucified, that through faith in Him, we can be made partakers of His holiness. We are utterly dependent on a relationship with Christ for our holiness, yet, obedience to His clear rules and gentle prodding will be an outflow. By His Spirit and by His Word, God will conform us into Christ-likeness: loving, kind, merciful, gracious, forgiving, selfless, righteous, joyful, generous, truthful, gentle, peaceful… the list goes on and on. A wretched sinner transformed into a holy saint; it’s an incredible sight, nothing short of a miracle.
Natalie: Thanks be to God, that’s exactly what He did. Christ was crucified, that through faith in Him, we can be made partakers of His holiness. We are utterly dependent on a relationship with Christ for our holiness, yet, obedience to His clear rules and gentle prodding will be an outflow.
Lance: WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?! I had to do a double take when I read this. Is it actually being claimed that justification (escaping God’s wrath) is made complete by a relationship with Christ? What happens if I don’t pray in 3 weeks? Do I suddenly come under the wrath of God again? What if I pray but it’s kind of a tired prayer? Ya know what I mean. What if I’m just half asleep because I stayed up too late writing responses to a certain website? At what point in that relationship do you become “holy” in God’s sight? Where is the line where God’s grace needs your “help”?
Galatians 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Question: Isn’t the context here speaking of the law? Like not eating shellfish, rounding your beards, etc?
Answer: Yes and no. The law is the “knowledge of sin” (see Romans). Christ’s death delivered us from ALL of the law. This includes the moral aspect as well. Did Christ just die to deliver you from shellfish? Did his death also cover your lust? Your anger? Your bitterness? If your answer is that his death did NOT cover the moral law as well, then you are in direct opposition to the apostle. See verse 17 above. If we are justified through Christ, then we cannot be found to be sinners.
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
We now live FREE from fear of ALL condemnation! Praise GOD!
Question: Doesn’t this lead to men and women living in immorality?
Answer: Yes. Absolutely. This is why Christ said there would be many that say in that Day “Lord, Lord did we not…”. However those that refuse to make their calling and election sure will find on judgment day that their faith was a sham. They have no proof of their profession. They are empty cisterns. The proof that one is in Christ is the fruit that one bears. The fruit doesn’t save you from God’s wrath. However the fruit shows that you ARE saved from God’s wrath. The same people who have been justified will be sanctified. Why? Because God has written His law on their “minds and hearts”
Hebrews 10
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Tragically, this miracle is often short-circuited and traded in for a list of rules. “Yes, you were saved by faith, but you’ll need to do these things to become holy. No, these rules aren’t exactly in the Bible, but this is my opinion on how you should apply principles-and you’ll follow my opinion if you’re 100% holiness.” What would Paul say? “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you…Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” “Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?” Holiness will never come from works, works are only holy if they come as an outflow of a relationship with Christ. If works come as an endeavor to please men, they are nothing but a meaningless burden.
Natalie: Tragically, this miracle is often short-circuited and traded in for a list of rules.
Lance: That depends on what miracle you are referring to. Are you stating the miracle of “earning” God’s favor and deliverance from His wrath by your own perfect relationship? If so then this is no miracle. It’s heresy.
Natalie: “Yes, you were saved by faith, but you’ll need to do these things to become holy.
Lance: You are spot on. However a relationship cannot make on holy either. Only faith in Christ.
Natalie: this is my opinion on how you should apply principles-and you’ll follow my opinion if you’re 100% holiness
Lance: Why is this a bad thing? If someone is saying applying scripture to my life and showing me where I fall short, then I should rejoice! Didn’t Paul do this in Romans 14? Didn’t he plainly show them they fell short in love? Why are you attacking Paul for? I fully understand leaders abuse this. However the answer ISN’T to burn the bible because we don’t like the abuse of its teachings. The answer is to get better leadership. (If you don’t believe that Natalie’s teaching would “burn the bible”. See my previous comments in this article. I plainly show that this teaching would remove any believer from consistently applying the bible to their own lives or others)
Natalie:What would Paul say? “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you…Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” “Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?” Holiness will never come from works, works are only holy if they come as an outflow of a relationship with Christ.
Lance: His heart would be broken. Almost as broken as when he would see your exegesis of this passage from Galatians. I imagine all the Reformers would also grown in incredible agony. This passage, as I showed earlier, has NOTHING to do with sanctification. Paul was showing the Galatians that their justification was NOT made complete by works. He shows this by reminding them that they received the Spirit not as a result of works but by faith. God’s divine favor came upon faith ONLY. Why then do they now think their justification needs to be perfected by works of the law (flesh)? God’s currency is faith.
Can you imagine how much it must frustrate Christ to see lists of extra-biblical rules being taught as the means of His holiness? Can you imagine how much it must grieve His heart to see converts base their spiritual maturity off of what they look like, completely short-cutting around a deep, and transforming walk with Him? Can you imagine His disappointment when His body splits and divides itself when one member doesn’t develop identical convictions to another?
Natalie: Can you imagine how much it must frustrate Christ to see lists of extra-biblical rules being taught as the means of His holiness?
Lance: Absolutely horrific. I agree it is a sad thought for sure. Almost as sad as stating a relationship will also earn God’s favor. That His blood was not sufficient.
Natalie: Can you imagine His disappointment when His body splits and divides itself when one member doesn’t develop identical convictions to another?
Lance: Can you imagine His disappointment when we live inconsistent lives that do not glorify His name? When asked why we ignored His truth we are told “I didn’t feel that conviction. I didn’t feel there was anything wrong with my porn habit. You didn’t specifically mention it! I didn’t feel my marijuna habit was wrong! You didn’t specifically mention it”. Oh how God must weep for a church that looks nothing like His Son. That CONSTANTLY refuses to bear His image. That has caused His name to become a byword for compromise and hypocrisy. Don’t believe that’s happening? Then start visiting other churches. Start evangelizing. Start talking to people our age about convictions and how they live their lives.
Question: Do you believe that all Christians will have identical convictions on every issue?
Answer: Absolutely not. We all struggle in unique ways. However we WILL have the same convictions in certain areas. Why? Because we all live in the same culture. Therefore we will have certain convictions that are similar due to this shared experience. We are called to be salt. We are called to approve that which is good and hate that which is evil. We will be consistent in this regard.
This, my friend, is not holiness. This is compromise, deadly compromise.
Lance: I agree that it is a compromise to think that process of sanctification is JUST a list of rules. However, it is ALSO incredible compromise to think that sanctification is JUST a relationship and doesn’t require consistent conformity to scriptural principles. If we come to this conclusion then we are NOT Berean. Being Berean requires being submitted to scripture not feelings. Not incilinations. Instead it must be SUBMISSION to scripture in a logically consistent manner.
Conclusion
I ought to clarify one more time that this article was not written against the proper use of the Holiness Movement’s teachings. This was intended to address the abuse of their teachings, but we must admit, it’s a very common abuse.
To answer the question in the introduction, there is a way to know we have personal holiness, and it’s very simple: faith in Christ alone. As we grow in deeper in our relationship with Him, His Spirit and His Word will guide us into truth and convict us of sin. But at the end of the day? We still aren’t banking on our righteousness when death comes knocking. Heaven will only be obtained by His holiness, and we are partakers of His holiness only by faith, never works.
Natalie: Heaven will only be obtained by His holiness, and we are partakers of His holiness only by faith, never works.
vs
Natalie: Holiness only comes from a relationship with Christ
Lance: So which is it? Which way do we escape the terrible wrath of God? If one claims both then you are a heretic and need to repent. I will not mince words on this issue. The bible is ABUNDANTLY clear on this point. Please go take the time to do an in depth study of Galatians 1 & 2.
To all my friends who have a genuine conviction towards a strict outward application, I want you to know that you have my utmost respect. Whether it’s a conviction to wear home-spun dresses, to wear veils, to wear skirts, to stay clean-shaven, to not wear wedding rings, to not pluck your eyebrows, to not curl your hair, to not watch movies, to not have internet-whatever it may be, go for it and never back down. If your conviction flows out of obedience to Christ’s work in your life, then for you, it would be compromise to give it up. So don’t, and God will greatly bless your faithfulness. That said, please be careful that you do not expect your personal application of scripture be practiced by others. Don’t force it on someone as a rule, for such rules are only hindrances if they are followed to please you and not Christ. Lastly, don’t look down upon or disfellowship a brother with different convictions from yourself. If he is living in blatant sin or contradicting a clear biblical rule, that’s one thing, but please, stay aware of the distinction between plain biblical rules and your personal application of principles.
Natalie: That said, please be careful that you do not expect your personal application of scripture be practiced by others. Don’t force it on someone as a rule, for such rules are only hindrances if they are followed to please you and not Christ.
Lance: If the conviction is a personal conviction then I give a hearty “Amen”! However if one uses this to justify behaviors that cause our fellow Christians to stumble, cause us to have a corrupted testimony in our culture, or rebel against God’s moral obligations then I say this is a grievous error.
Natalie: If he is living in blatant sin or contradicting a clear biblical rule, that’s one thing, but please, stay aware of the distinction between plain biblical rules and your personal application of principles.
Lance: What is meant by “biblical rules”? Does this include the often long lists in the epistles with little or no definitions? How do you exhort your brothers using such lists given by Paul when there is no specific application in scripture? How do you stay consistent with your passage earlier in this same article in which you said to be careful that “extra biblical” applications aren’t given?
“If there is one thing I have witnessed over and over in regard to holiness standards, it’s been good-intentioned Christians handing a list of extra-biblical rules to someone who (they believe) needs some more holiness. The thought behind this practice is, “Here, just follow all my opinions about how to apply biblical principles and you’ll have holiness.”
Perhaps you are saying that this includes only specific applications? (Therefore all of the lists Paul gave would be useless to us as Christians) Such as not offering food to idols? How many specific applications are given in scripture? (The answer is FEW) This is an area that I believe must be better defined by the author. This is the heart of the entire debate in my opinion. Are we allowed to exhort ourselves and others to higher degree of sanctification using the principles of the bible OR are we forced to use ONLY the specific applications scripture gives. If we are allowed to exhort one another based on principles (which is the only logical method) then how is this to be accomplished? I do not believe the authors of this site are consistent in this regard. In this very article they attack biblical principles. However they then turn and state that one CAN exhort fellow brothers and sisters based on “biblical rules”. How does one define a “biblical rule”? How do you define a “personal application” from “universal applications”?
I’m not using this comment in anyway to attack Natalie’s character. I am showing that there is a major inconsistency here. Why are Christians allowed to exhort one another using “biblical rules” (whatever that is) however they are NOT to apply scripture to others? Explain to me how this is to be accomplished? Explain how these statements don’t contradict themselves? Is the answer that only the rules that don’t lead to any form or semblance holiness standards are the “rules” we apply? Is perhaps this inconsistency due to a fear of holiness standards instead of a Berean hunger for truth?
I believe this article greatly demonstrates the flip flopping that is going on within the minds of many young people. Please take the time to read my article on “Breaking Up with the Holiness Movement” (The names not what you think lol)
Shameless Plug:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B04-riEdQoROS2tNcS1NTnhVLVpSNTQ1V19Ub0RfWlAxYTZv/view?usp=sharing
In summary, any doctrine which includes rules as a means to holiness, most especially rules which are not taught in scripture, is a not a holiness doctrine at all. Paul would call it a perversion of the gospel. I would call it a deadly compromise. True holiness is a glorious picture of thriving, vibrant, glorious relationships with Christ. He walks with us and talks with us; He loves us and forgives us; He calls us higher and deeper. He opens His Word and He opens His heart. Daily, step by step, we’re transformed into His glorious image. Bit by bit, we become some of the most loving, most compassionate, most forgiving, most joyful, most kind, most caring, most truthful, most pure, most holy human beings this world has ever seen. Christ pours Himself into us, and then we pour ourselves out for the least and the lost, turning our world upside down. It’s a glorious vision, it’s a glimpse of true holiness. It’s a virtue and an attribute of God that we must crave with everything in us. That craving must never be subdued with anything less: not works, not rules, not standards, not pleasing men. True holiness, His holiness, holiness through faith in Christ alone; this must be the only thing which satisfies us. Nothing more, nothing less. No compromise.
-Natalie Mayo
Natalie: In summary, any doctrine which includes rules as a means to holiness, most especially rules which are not taught in scripture, is a not a holiness doctrine at all. Paul would call it a perversion of the gospel.
Lance: Correct. He would also say the same about earning God’s holiness (justification) through a “relationship” with God.
Natalie: That craving must never be subdued with anything less: not works, not rules, not standards, not pleasing men. True holiness, His holiness, holiness through faith in Christ alone; this must be the only thing which satisfies us. Nothing more, nothing less. No compromise.
Lance: This sentiment is without question mutual. Frequently I weep for greater depths of holiness and purity. My greatest fear is ANY shadow in my life to hinder God’s light from shining through. I must confess I fall short in many ways. However I believe it CAN be seen in all its brilliance! Therefore I run all the harder! I search scripture diligently lest I cause any shadow in my life to hinder the Gospel of Christ. I do not seek to conform to man. Frankly many in the holiness movement would not agree with my thinking on the subjects of sanctification. However, I know it is truth. Why? Because His word is TRUTH therefore I gladly revel in my liberty and rejoice in my restraint. Why? Because through Christ I am liberated to freedom from sin. Because through Christ I am restrained from darkness. Through His revelation I can distinguish myself from a darkened world. This is my great fear. That my fellow Christian’s light would be bound by their “liberty” as an occasion to the flesh (Gal 5:13).