One of the most devilish teachings going around these days is that Christians are not to obey the Law of God lest they fall from Grace and become "legalistic," that dirty little condemning word that is used unjustly against those Christians who see otherwise.

The teaching implies this: the one who attempts to obey God's Law is going to end up being a self-righteous, fallen hypocrite worthy of condemnation, while the one who merely rests in the Grace of God, giving thanks, is the true believer who pleases God and receives salvation. This is worse than ridiculous; it's outright at enmity with God, and it tends to expose the goats, the Grace-Only crowd that has somehow come to believe that calculated effort in honoring the Law with deliberated good deeds is somehow a work of the flesh.

God forbid that we should do a kindness to someone all on our own initiative! And what greater thanks can we offer God than when we do a kindness to someone, or meet their need, all on our own initiative? Wouldn't it be true that God is waiting for us to grow up, and to do good works all on our own initiative?

Put it this way, that we should only expect the goats among us to gravitate toward the Grace-only teaching, and that goats are likewise going to become leaders among us, teaching that very thing.

Grace was granted specifically for the purpose of leading to our good works, as Ephesians 2:10 reveals. What great measure of insult do we do to Grace if we neglect the good works? Indeed, because Grace is merely the springboard, vehicle, or door to our performance of good works, it's the good works that are the Desired end-purpose of our faith...i.e. good works hold priority over Faith and Grace.

I do not understand those who keep harping about the futility of trying to earn our salvation by works, because I've never met one Christian who is trying to earn salvation by works alone, without faith in Jesus. I get the impression that such harping is to erode in our minds the high value of good works.

Let me tell you that there are bound to be church leaders so concerned for their financial success that they will seek to have you give your money to no one else but them. Have you ever considered that? All good works are to be directed to the church offering plate. But I want preachers to condition my mind consistently toward my doing good works on my fellow church people. I never want that message to get away from me. I want my preacher to condition everyone in the fellowship to be kind to one another, to live as family, to sacrifice for one another, to get beyond the superficial niceties of Sunday mornings.

Church leaders know that if you give your money to one another, there will be less for their offering plate. Beware the church leaders who remind you over and over again to give ten percent of your income to the offering plate. Such preachers already have a tough-enough time of it on so convincing you that they wouldn't dream of urging you to give your money instead to a fellow church member, and so the most basic commandment of God, that one church member be kind to another church member, is eradicated. It is difficult for us to appreciate one another when we don't do kind things for one another, and it doesn't take much guess work to figure that a church not practicing kindness will end up turning on one another, even while they shake hands and smile at one another.

I believe that we can fall away from Faith; in fact, we can also be spit out of the mouth of God if He can't stand the sight of us due to our works. Are you one of those who has been led to believe that God is just too loving to be that way?

We are to wait for the Holy Spirit, some say, to make us perform good works. Yes, we are to keep in touch with the Spirit (i.e. with the "Vine"); otherwise we go the way of corruption. When it comes to whether or not we help others in need, the Spirit will not force us to act; it's our decision and responsibility. We remain in the Vine when we choose the right; we disconnect from the Vine when we choose the wrong. Note also that God sometimes tests us and that a test would not be such if the Spirit acted for us.

Carrying out good works is from our heart, not from our flesh. If anything comes from "the flesh," it isn't a good work, for "the flesh" is by definition a work of evil. Do not call a good work "of the flesh." Anything done for the benefit of others comes from the heart. The Holy Spirit given to us gives us a special concern for the needs of others, especially those in the fellowship of believers. This concern for others is the fulfillment of the Law of God in a nutshell. Dare we call it "legalism"?

Grace is the forgiveness of all disobedience; dare we teach that a willful obedience is a falling away from Christ? That's ludicrous, for Grace was granted to us that we might repent from past disobedience to the Law, and turn toward obeying it. Law, Obedience, Love and Good Works are essentially one and the same. And what else is there to obey under the New Testament if not the Mosaic Law, for the Law of Jesus is not fundamentally different than the Law of Moses. Indeed, the New-Testament writings are an exposition on how to obey the Law of Moses, with a New-Covenant forgiveness in the Blood added in to replace old Temple activities.

Watch out; the freedom that the goats boast about and enjoy from the Law might also be Deemed freedom from Christ, not freedom in Christ. Let me shock some of you right now by saying that we can and must earn our salvation. Surely, obedience is work, wherefore "earning our salvation" is an appropriate phrase to use If you think that God makes us automatically obedient when we receive the Spirit, then the epistles, and the seven letters of Revelation, were needless writings, and the warnings and promptings in the epistles, and in the seven letters, were wasted breath. What did Jesus mean when he warned in those seven letters that we are to conquer with good works? Didn't he imply that we might fall short of conquering? Is "conquering" not the same as earning our salvation?

Of course, there can be no earning of salvation without the Blood of Christ to forgive sins. But once forgiven, we must pass the test before being saved. Put it this way, that we are saved and forgiven initially due to no good works of our own, but we are freely granted the Spirit when we ask for it no matter how great our sins to that point. But we must then maintain our salvation. Yes, by effort and making right decisions. The one who fails God after receiving the Spirit will lose his/her salvation.

Am I being judgmental? No, I'm just reporting the fact that God will judge whether or not I am worthy to enter His kingdom. My conscience will indicate whether or not I am failing Him, and how well or poorly I am going along. I wouldn't want to be biting my nails daily in dread of losing salvation, unless I'm earning it by my sinful, worldly lifestyle. God is kind, and will save me even with my pants are on fire, but there is a bar that I must jump over in order to make it at all. I am the type to ignore the once-saved-always-saved teaching; it's just my preference.

Paul taught that without the Blood of Christ, nothing is satisfactory, but Jesus taught that without an acceptable level of obedience, the Blood will not be Applied to our sins. My Bible tells me that I am in this "race" to earn a crown of life. Eternal life is, time and time again, portrayed as a reward for my work in Christ. And isn't "reward" another way of saying "earning"? Some will say that good works only earn certain Heavenly rewards, but not eternal life itself. I beg to differ. It's only those who expend their talents -- so to speak, meaning those who perform good works -- who receive a welcome into the Kingdom when Jesus returns. Paul follows up by stating that we were created anew (i.e. born again) for the very purpose of performing good works (Ephesians 2:10).

Of course, if you would choose to view obedience not as a price to pay, but as a privilege to enjoy, then you are doing very well and are a fine example to others. The point is, obedience must be included with our faith, and while no Grace-only advocate would argue with that, why do they keep reminding us that we can't earn our salvation with good works? What is their motive for reminding us time and time again? Are they not implying that good works are somehow degenerative? Why not rather teach that good works are, with urgency, to be added to our faith lest our faith fail us?

It is disobedience to the Law that gives death, not, as some say, our attempts to obey it. How can one obey unless he tries? If one tries, dare we call it "works of the flesh"? Obedience is not always easy and joyful; it often takes struggle and pain, for which reason Jesus urges us to "overcome" (in the seven letters of Revelation 2 and 3). Many of us are overcoming the world, resisting it's corruptions, but adding good works to my faith only helps to assure that I'm not wasting my time in the faith, and good works develop a good pattern or habit that replace the evil habits.

Therefore, the Law is wonderful and gives life, not death, to those who strive to obey it...our shortcomings (i.e. sins) will be covered by the Blood. Anyone who does not obey the Law satisfactorily will not be covered by the Blood. God decides what is satisfactory for every individual receiving Christ; the lukewarm believer will be spat out of His mouth, horribly enough. Who measures the temperature? Not me. I'm in danger of being too lukewarm myself, so don't go by what I do, go by what the Bible says. My job here is to report what the Bible says. You do not know whether or not I will make it; I do not know.

Why does the Bible have us serve God in fear and trembling if we are a shoe-in to make it in on our faith alone? But we need serve in fear and trembling only due to our sins, for on account of our good works we have peace and confidence, and it's good works that drives out fear. Loving one another will drive out fear of condemnation; you will need no fine sermon to ease your conscience when you practice love and kindness to those in need. Is there not one soul in your church who needs you, or something that you own? You can judge whether or not you're now a goat or a sheep by how you reacted to that last statement.

The good news is that goats can become sheep on a dime, by merely wanting to do so. If there is hope for the wolf, how much more for a goat? The question is, do we wish to barely make it over the bar that the Father has set before us, as might a goat, or do we wish to excel as does a sheep? I don't need to tell you where you stand; you know already.

The argument of those who err in this matter goes like this: since we can never achieve salvation by good works, because we end up coming short of the Law's requirements, the mere attempt to fulfill the whole Law is death. One may as well toss out the entire Bible, which, from start to finish, places the responsibility upon us. Salvation has always based on whether or not we obey satisfactorily. It hasn't changed in the New Testament; in fact, we are now on a higher field, and expected to do more good than did Old-Testament saints. God did not have Jesus die to lower our level of obedience.

God is not going to say to me, "There goes John again, trying to obey My Laws, away to Hell with that hypocrite!" Rather, he might say, "There is John ignoring My Laws again and again and again, therefore I don't know him." That's what sin is: not trying; ignoring the Law.

I hope that "Law" doesn't conjure up in your mind Temple activities or things like circumcision; what I mean by "Law" is what Jesus meant: compassion for others and resisting sinful activities. In short: righteousness.

Jesus obeyed the Law of Moses always, but we can obey the Law sometimes. If He obeyed the Law of Moses, don't you think that we should (try) too? If He didn't obey the Law of Moses, what Law did he obey? Faith in Jesus Christ itself is our struggle to obey God's Law; the one who has the effort will be given more Holy-Spirit power so that a fuller obedience (and greater rewards) can be attained. But the one that doesn't have the effort, everything he thinks he has in Christ will be taken away. Isn't that what Jesus said?

Go out from your comfort and seek the opportunities to do good, as Jesus did. Am I being pushy? Then you're a goat, and you don't realize that it will add great dimension to your life if you do good just because it's pleasing to God. The problem may be, you don't care to please God, because God did this bad thing or that bad thing. God has a problem. He can't change. We're going to have to accept it; there is no other God. He permits unspeakable evil to befall the world.

Note that the Pharisees did not usually keep to the Law strictly, but with fanfare they kept to their erroneous interpretation of the Law. Some of the Pharisees did teach the Law correctly, although Jesus said that they didn't practice what they taught. Moreover, the better Pharisees who taught a strict keeping to the Law yet had the problem of rejecting the One who gave the Law: Jesus. This empty sort of obedience to the Law is hypocritical in the highest sense...a true legalism. Dare we lump anyone who is born again into that pile? No, for they have come to acknowledge the Lawgiver while obeying His Law. Legalism is to keep the Law without faith in Christ. Keeping the Law with Faith is not legalism.

The Pharisees had Law-Only, for which reason they would die in their sins. The one who has Law-and-Grace is not to be compared with a Pharisee, yet this comparison is made repeatedly by the Grace-Only believers. Goats will respond that the Law was given only to reveal sin and can now, for all practical purposes, be ignored. So why didn't Jesus ignore it as an example to how we should live the Christian life?

The true meaning of "legalism" is the strict carrying out of the Law, to the letter. Is that wrong? Would God say, "Hey you, Mary, what is this I here that you are keeping my Law to the very letter; come give an account of yourself, thou wicked woman." Didn't Jesus say that not one iota, not one comma, will be eradicated from the Law until all things are fulfilled? How legalistic of Jesus. Yet the Faith-only crowd speaks against Jesus time and again when they argue that legalism is sinful.

What the Pharisaic Jews were guilty of was not legalism, but, aside from rejecting Jesus, twisting the Law for their man-made traditions. The problem was, they were not being legalistic.

But granted, there is a legalism in a negative sense, the obedience to the Law as a façade to keep political power and other selfish gain. Jesus was legalistic in the positive sense: He strictly obeyed the Law in purity of heart. How I wish I could.

Grace-Only teaching is the wide door to destruction, in my opinion. For it is not the mere see-ers, speakers, teachers and watchers of the Word (i.e. Law), but it's the doers of the Law who find the narrow gate. All the rest are goats.

I understand the concept wherein the Apostles wanted not to lay a heavy burden on the Gentiles who were coming to Christ, that the Mosaic laws relating to the Temple should not be placed upon their backs. But that wouldn't eradicate what Jesus said:

"Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men likewise shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven..."(Matthew 5:19).

John goes on to say that "His commandments are not heavy" because we are born again in the Holy Spirit, Who helps us to overcome sin. In fact, in verse 4, the definition of "faith" is "overcoming the world." And "overcoming" can't exist without our working at it. So, salvation is by Faith-and-Overcoming. That is, in the phrase "faith in Christ" there is implied an overcoming of sin. But if our faith is to merely believe in Jesus with our mind, then as James said, even the devil believes that.

"Increase our faith," the apostles once asked Jesus. And Jesus did not increase their power of faith at that time, that they might be like magicians doing powerful works. Instead, in effect he said, "Obey God as if it were your own personal business, concerned about the increase of the Kingdom, and not as your quota to merely receive your pay." Liberal paraphrase, I know, but it's the essence of the Lord's response. Only fleshy believers ask what they "hafta do," but the Spirit makes us "wanna do." Our natures are changed by the indwelling Spirit so that we want to see a good world with good people doing good to one another.

Romans 7 reads: "you were put to death to the law through the body of Christ" (v 4). So you see, the Law was not put to death, but we were put to death...our flesh, that is. And when we die to the Law, does that really mean that it's the Law that has been done away with? Isn't that a twisting of Paul's words? And what do we die to if not the penalty of the Law? That is Grace. The Law always kills because the Law has a penalty attached for disobedience. But Christ "kills" us (i.e. our "old man") in order to divorce the penalty from us. And then He raises the new man to a new marriage with God. Because God marries us, His Laws are written on our hearts, as a deposit sealing the engagement. Our job is to remain engaged with Him, and not to walk away to a new lover: the lusts and teachings of the ungodly world around us.

Thus, we no longer obey the Mosaic Law as on tablets, but with the Mosaic Law written in our hearts, as per Jer 31:33, where we recognize that the Holy Spirit in our hearts is that "writing." Because we have the Holy Spirit in our hearts to help us, the New-Testament Law was made more stringent, as per the Lord's sermon on the mount in Matthew 5-7. Yet the goats tell us that the Law was done away with. In effect, Jesus said, "You have heard the Law of Moses, that it said such and such, well now I'm telling you to make it even more stringent upon yourselves; if you so much as hate a brother you're killing him...etc."

Paul said, "the law is (S)piritual" (v 14). It is also holy (v 12). And if it's holy, we must keep it. We must not trash it, or view it as passé. Only the wrath of God that was inherent in the Law is to be done away with. Jesus' death did away with that Wrath for us that we might not be appointed to it. But obviously, the Wrath in the Law still applies to those who don't have Christ. If you haven't been killed by Christ, the Wrath still remains on you.

We are to delight in the Law, says Romans 7:22, even while our flesh wars against it. We do not trash the Law just because our flesh doesn't like it. God gave us the Spirit that we might tell the flesh where to go. And when in the end our lusty flesh has had many victories over our wretched spirits, we have the Grace that replaces the Wrath and thereby Conquers death on our behalf. But only if we honor the Law by trying to obey it. The others will be Deemed foolish goats. God would rather see a man distressed over his sins than a man who says, "Don't worry, be happy, Christ will forgive me." For didn't James instruct us to wail over our sins? But don't let guilt remain long, for Peter also instructs us to have a clean conscience, for who can do a decent good work with a guilt-laden soul?

It is incorrect to say that the Law can't produce some righteousness. It can, and it does, every time we obey it. Through the Holy Spirit, we can overcome time and time again. If it is impossible to overcome, we would not have been called to overcome. Some teach that when Isaiah likens righteousness to filthy rags, that we are always incapable of achieving righteousness. But just because we can't achieve perfect righteousness does not mean that there cannot exist a righteous man. The Bible clearly reveals righteous people...those who strive for perfect righteousness even while they fail from time to time. They just get up and try again after falling to sin. They do not continue to sin as though married to it.

When Paul says that we are not under Law, he meant not under Law-Only, as were/are the Pharisaic Jews. If you have Faith-Only, you will be a straw hut on the sand. If you have Law-and-Faith, you will be a castle on the Rock. Jesus said it plainly: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law..." (Matthew 5:17). How can we then use Paul to contest against these words of God? Only by twisting Paul's meanings!

Consider the following statement made by a pastor, C.H. Fisher, a post-tribulationist:

One might argue that there are some good things in the Law. That may be so, but the package deal that was given to Moses has been replaced with the indwelling of the Giver."

Only "some good things" are in the Law? That "may" be so? Isn't that a wee bit shy of the reality? Mr. Fisher makes a distinction between Law and the Holy Spirit of New-Testament times. He teaches that the Law of Moses has been done away with and replaced by the Holy Spirit. But look at what God has to say:

"But this is the [New] Covenant that I shall cut with the house of Israel...I will put my laws in their inward parts" (Jeremiah 31:33).

It doesn't sound like a doing away of the Law to me. It sounds like a reinforcing of the Laws. Rebuked be anyone who teaches that the Law of God has been done away with! "Until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or one point will by any means pass away from the Law, until all things come to pass..." (Matthew 5:18). Jesus goes on to imply that Fisher and his ilk lack understanding, and, if they are sheep, will be called least in the Kingdom.

Wouldn't you know it, Fisher is a "full gospel" charismatic, teaching that they are a few notches above others in their spirituality, always looking down on others. Full-gospel-ites feel that they are the only ones who truly understand God...all others are legalistic, merely practicing Christianity in their flesh because they haven't got the extra indwelling of the Spirit. Thus, for placing themselves at the head, full-gospel-ites will be the last. And some won't even get in. God measures spirituality by the level of our obedience to the Law, otherwise why was the Spirit given as the Law on our hearts?

Fisher writes: "Legalism goes back to putting flesh in charge of man’s salvation and ignores the work of Christ." In other words, he's saying that some Christians are reverting or degenerating into Law Obedience, as if striving to obey the Law is somehow "of the flesh" and contrary to the work of the indwelling Spirit. Isn't that the very advice that the devil would give?

Fisher continues: "Legalism keeps us struggling in our flesh, striving to obey the Law, wrestling needlessly with what we are supposed to be dead to." It is one thing if a man were to teach that attempting to obey the Law without Christ's forgiveness is a vanity. It is also acceptable if a man were to argue, as does the apostle Paul, that attempting to obey the Law without the Spirit will be frustration. But Fisher is saying much more.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this pastor telling us that "striving" to obey the Law is something that we are to be dead to? Is he also suggesting that we are not to "struggle" to obey the Law, or that God would not have us strive or struggle, for that would then become a fleshy operation? Have the pastors become so utterly stupid? Shall I respect such a man? Shall I relent from exposing him? Shall I treat him with dignity when he comes teaching precisely what the devil would teach?

What does the term "disciple" imply if not a "disciplined" obedience, and a "struggling" to obey? Is a man Spiritual only if he cruises through the Christian life? If he strives to obey, is he less than Spiritual? Yes, anyone who attempts to obey the Law will run straight into the flesh and thereby find frustration, but isn't that the very fight of faith that we are called to engage, especially now that we are given the Spirit for that very task? Put to death the flesh, not the Law. Obey the law, not the flesh. But to say that attempting to obey the Law is a fleshy operation is exactly what the devil would teach.

Fisher again: "the Holy Spirit is the law of God written in our hearts and minds." Then he says, "Please read all the scriptures concerning law in the New Testament and you will easily see that the Mosaic Law was fulfilled, done away with, made obsolete..." Whoa, devil, is that you speaking?

Am I to believe that Jesus fulfilled the Law right up until the Crucifixion, only to scrap it the moment that he was Resurrected? I'm laughing folks, at you who are now thinking that I'm being rude. I'm laughing at you who feel sorry for Fisher, because you haven't got the sense to recognize the folly of his statements. Okay, I'm not exactly laughing out loud, but I am snickering a little, because I know how you will react toward me right now, feeling that I'm unholy to speak this way. The real folly is you who can't so much as rise to a level that sees Mr. Fisher for what he is, a dunce. I care not that I don't speak with respect for a "man of God," for if he were truly worthy of respect he would not have opposed the Law of God.

Jesus said it, in pure black and white, that the Law was to remain at least until Heaven and Earth disappear, and not to be abolished by people such as Fisher. When the Temple curtain was ripped at the Crucifixion, it was therefore not a sign from God that the Law was being abolished, but rather that the Old Covenant was abolished. The Law was retained, and fused into a New Covenant with the Blood of the Lamb. The Old Covenant was a deal, Obey My Law, or else. The New Covenant is a second chance: Obey My Law with Jesus in your heart and mind, or else.

When Jesus said in Matthew 22:40 that all the Law hangs on two commandments, wasn't he referring to, and advocating obedience to, the Mosaic Law?

Not all who teach Grace-Only are goats or wolves, just as not all who teach pre-trib are goats or wolves. But the goats will gravitate both toward Grace-Only and Pre-Trib. Some sheep are among the goats because the goats have an appearance of proper, educated Christianity. Some sheep wrongly teach and practice the same errors, therefore. It's not for me to judge who the sheep and goats are, except to say that goats think only for themselves, wherefore when it comes to church, goats are bound to seek positions of honor for themselves, and to ignore the sheep while raising other goats to high positions, but not too high.