Skip to main content

Hebrews 10:1-4/Formalism

"For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins?But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

    The debate over the continuity/discontinuity of the Old and New Covenants rages on.  There are those who see absolutely no continuity between the covenants with regard to redemption and the moral code.  They would see little need to read the Old Testament.  On the other side you'll find those who incorrectly see no distinction between the covenants.  They say the only difference is that the New Testament now includes the previously-ostracized Gentiles.  

    While I disagree with both of these viewpoints, I do not seek to discuss that now.  I want to discuss a problem I see among both camps.  Almost nobody would say that Christians have to offer the blood of bulls and goats.  You would be laughed to ridicule.  But I am here to say today that we have replaced the blood of bulls and goats with our programs and liturgies.  Just as the Jews in Jesus's day had done, we have ignored the important things in the Bible--love, mercy, truth--and replaced them with club rules.  We may not have blood sacrifices or intricate tithing rules, but we certainly have a moral code constructed by man and applied with severity by those who have logs in their own eyes.  

    What am I trying to say?  What am I trying to get across with this strange rabbit trail?  Simply this: It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins, but it is also impossible to cleanse sins by perfect adherence to rules--God's or man's.  We love our pride so much that we refuse to receive Christ's free expiation from sin.  We try to add to our salvation by keeping the Law, by attending church three times a week, by abstaining from smoking and drinking and swearing, etc.  We would never dare to try and replace Christ's blood with the blood of an animal and hope to be saved, but for some reason we think our clean living and tithing will.  

    I'm not saying that these are bad things to do.  God's Law, as found in the Old and New Testaments, is good.  We should endeavor to reflect the moral character personified therein.  We should try to avoid all appearance of evil.  We should try to live cleanly and respectfully.  The one thing that we must never do, however, is replace or supplement the finished work of Christ on our behalf.  Our good works must always be from genuine love for God and others, not from an attempt to earn what is already ours--forgiveness and sonship.

    It is impossible to remove sins by anything but the blood of Christ.  Your list is no better than anyone else's list.  Your works come no closer to earning or maintaining salvation than the whore's down the street.  Your constant attendance at church is no closer to earning you salvation than your neighbor's frequency at the local bar.  Of course God is pleased by it and wants us to worship and learn about Him, but these things are a reaction to salvation, not a means of winning it.  If your Christian lifestyle is formalistic and legalistic, your works are no better than the blood of bulls and goats. 

   

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary