Legalism v. Antinomianism

"The measure of righteousness, but not the means of righteousness"

.

Legalism is the default of all religions. Even mine. I've been there. Following Jesus is different. The Law is still the MEASURE of righteousness, since Jesus (the MEANS) is the only human who ever followed it perfectly, and completely, as a human. Sinful humans (me, for example) cannot follow God's moral law. Our frustration at our obvious failure is what must drive us to Jesus and his complete, sinless perfection before the Law.
Misuse of the Law comes in several forms:
1. If I compare my own transgressions with other humans, it leads either to pride or despair, but never to Jesus.
2. If I ignore God's Law, I thereby create my own law, which I still disobey.
3. If I view the Law as a path to God, I fail. I fail in an especially miserable way if I THINK I followed it, for then I deceive myself much like #2. The legalists and the antinomians make EXACTLY the same mistake. They just look different while they stumble.
Only by turning to Jesus am I freed from the sin which makes Law-following impossible. But the moral law is still holy, righteous, and good, as Paul wrote, and "perfect" as David declared. It's using it as a means to Jesus that is wrong.
Finally, even our reason is fallen and we have a tough time teasing out the moral law from the Old Testament law. It takes work, but it's not really that hard. Anything repeated in the New Testament, like the Ten Commandments, is binding, morally, on Christians today. That includes rules about sex, which go back to Genesis 2--many centuries before the Law was given at Sinai!

David, prompted and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, said
"The Law of the LORD is perfect."
What part of "perfect" don't some of us get?
Have you never read "..as we gaze intently into the PERFECT LAW THAT GIVES FREEDOM"
Disobedience is the sign of bondage. Obeying God's Law is the sign of our freedom. By grace, we are freed from sin, and THEN we can freely obey.

I especially recommend "The Prodigal God" by Tim Keller. It is one of the best books I've ever read.

The Radical Middle

Isn't there a Beatles song about dreaming about....please enlighten me with a comment, anonymous or otherwise. Anyway, my dream is buried in this exchange from sojourners
http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/2009/01/16/look-whos-praying-at-the-inauguration/?disqus_reply=5378002

A frequent problem is the oppressed becoming the oppressor. By framing gay issues as civil rights issues rather than religious disagreements, the trends you mention could well end up with me being despised as a bigot, much as many people now look down on a good 'ole boy with a Confederate flag on his pickup(i.e. assuming he's a racist). Legally, a sermon on the Ten Commandments could be viewed by a court sympathetic to GLBT issues as an incitement for a drunk to beat up a gay person in a bar nearby that evening. If such a crime actually occurred, the victim could sue and compel the pastor/church to spend a fortune on a legal defense. In California a fertility clinic was successfully sued for referring a lesbian couple to a different clinic for religious reasons. Also in California, people are being denied their right to vote in citizen petitions. So as fervently as I want you to be physically safe, I don't support much of what is now occurring. Your psychological well-being is important, but freedom and the democratic process are important to the nation as a whole.
A plea for Christians to work for the physical safety of GLBT folk overseas even as we oppose gay marriage here in the US for religious reasons. This is the sort of radical middle thing that should appeal to Sojourners Magazine; unfortunately they are more just the Christian left these days. Which is their right, of course, but a disappointment to folks like me who were big fans of Jim Wallis back in the 1980's

I would also like to affirm JamesM: "So many people dehumanize others and think that that is what they are called to do. Maybe if they had a real heart-to-heart with people who have experienced what you have, they would change their tune."///More on hate crimes:Perhaps you[a person I'm debating on sojo.net] support hate crimes legislation for honorable reasons. I oppose it from the reasons given by this Jewish letter writer, published in response to Cornel West: September 29, 2007
CORNEL WEST and Sylvia Rhue's arguments about hate crimes legislation border on hatred itself, such as when they accuse people who oppose this legislation as being guilty of "falsehoods and bigotry" ("Fabricated fears about hate crimes legislation," Op-ed, Sept. 25).
Hate crimes legislation is unnecessary. A crime is a crime. Hate is a motive. Making a motive a crime is legislating thought. Matthew Shepard was murdered. That was the crime. Perhaps hatred of homosexuals was the motive. Every crime has a motive. Greed can cause theft. Jealousy can cause people to kill the lovers of their mates. Anger can lead to assault and battery. Anger, jealousy, and greed are not crimes. Assault and battery, murder, and theft are crimes. Hate also should not be a crime. We need to keep our senses, even if we don't like the reason that someone commits a crime.
B. M. C.