I see a OSAS debate coming again.  And I'm not quite ready to do the debate thing (again), but I do have an honest question.  As I've mentioned before, our Bible study is going through Acts.  From a OSAS perspective, what exactly happens in Acts 5:1-5:11?

Sorry.  Third paragraph suggested that's the way this was going.  And I'm not really interested in redoing the debate again (especially since we continued in e-mail).   Just ran across that as I say and I knew how it fit into my beliefs and wasn't sure how it fit elsewhere.  Maybe some time I'll follow up via e-mail.

As to why believers don't act/talk like they've been freed from anything significant, who that is not a Christian do you know who believes that at the core they aren't basically a good person?  That's one of the problems with modern churches.  Nobody wants to do the judgemental, we are all sinners in some way thing.  They just want to talk about  Love, Love, Love.  Going back to the Greg Laurie well again.  In order for the good news to mean anything, they need to know the bad news.

Yay! A Gospel that really is full of grace and good news! This is exactly why I think that properly distinguishing Law and Gospel is so critical.

As many people have pointed out to me (either directly or in things that I've read), it is so very easy for us to slip back to trying to deal with God according to the Law in one way or another. Even people who are committed to "justification by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone" can succumb to the temptation, whether by trying to coerce righteous behavior or by trying to turn faith into some kind of a work. Thank God that He reminds us through the Scriptures, the encouragement of fellow believers, etc. that the Gospel really is gracious, that grace really is free, and that we are free indeed.

"...there is no more sin for those who are in Christ Jesus!"

Aww, you didn't pick up on the "all" and attempt a universalist position!  Nuts.

You also didn't even mention the free will vs. God's sovreginity debate.  Poo!

;)  Great post, Mike.  Star'd.

lol - thanks Zach (or Jessica?), that is a resounding endorsement!!  Brad, I agree!! Freedom isn't worth wading in, may as well dive all the way in!! ...you know, like just what is "a little bit of freedom" anyway, but no freedom at all!  ~mike

Mike-n-Laura,

Congratulations on your breakthrough! I think it would only be heretical if you were led to the thinking that you no longer sin. I know when I first began to understand my liberty, I actually did think it was impossible for Christians to sin. I was confusing freedom from condemnation (true) with freedom from sinning (false). The second is false, and heretical, because as a human being, you will sin until the day you die. If you don't think so, you have a small view of Sin. You are perhaps too wrapped up in the action of sin, and not the attitude of sin. Every breath we take that is not dependent upon God and fails to glorify Him is sin. But! There is now no condemnation! Our future sins are covered by future grace (I recommend the book by John Piper of that title). Never forget, that whether you are a veteran believer of 60 years or a thief on a cross, you are still 100% dependent on God's grace for salvation! Such grace!

Growing - I find it interesting that in a post about freedom in Christ, someone would bring up the fact that we were always free. I'm not trying to get in a debate over free-will (because it's like arguing that my wife's cooking is better than your wife's), but if Christ sets us free, doesn't that imply that we weren't free pre-Christ?

Mike-n-Laura,

As far as being orthodox, you are. As far as being outside mainstream Christianity, I'm afraid you might be. Even mainstream Christianity mixes in a little law-observance, even just to remind Christians that they shouldn't really do whatever they want to do. I think this is because the people they are talking to still really want to sin.

Instead, Christians are free, completely, to do what they want. The difference is that Christian's desire is no longer to sleep with random people, murder people that cut them off in traffic etc. Rather, the desire of a Christian's heart is God. We are completely free to taste God.

If your preaching doesn't result in the charge "Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?" (Romans 6:1), it might not be Gospel. If your preaching isn't so saturated with grace and freedom that natural man hears that he is free to sin, then you may be too legalistic.

Reformed one, I wish this idea wasn't outside of mainstream Christianity! I'd love to tell every brother/sister who's not enjoying their status as a child of God to know just how free that are!! It's liberating. Liberating us to sin? NO! Liberating us to worship and praise God with ALL of our hearts, holding back nothing. Free from the guilt of what we did the week leading up to Sunday. Free from the guilt over the things we must change in our lives. Over course we'll eventually make those changes, if we are truly God's children! 


Just yesterday I was talking with someone dear to me (not Lau..) about what I wrote in this blog, and their response was "we are free, with reservations..." OUCH!!! Like I've said, that's not freedom, just a different kind of bondage!

What my friend may be thinking, however, is that with freedom comes responsibility. Peter says "live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God." Kind of a harsh way of putting it, but of course he is urging us to use our freedom wisely.

Gervis, thanks for the beautiful image! I've never actually seen a comment like that before, cool!
Rita, yep, that's was grace is all about. If there were strings attached it wouldn't truly be grace! 
Aaron, freedom came with a price, one we don't have to pay. Amen!! 
Greta, thanks for that poignant verse, love it!
Eckertman, freedom is a state of mind and more. It's reality for the born-again believer!! :-)

Jam, I love your statement about the paradox about becoming "both less concerned and more concerned about his sin". That's a perfect way of putting it! The difference is in the way we feel concern -- from one of nagging fear over the possibility of rejection by God to one of maintaining a relationship, where neither party is ever going anywhere, kind of like your relationship with your parent(s) or kid(s) - related for life, eternal life!

Thanks again for the feedback folks! I love that so many recognize this great freedom, and I'm glad that I have been shouted down as a heretic!! (LOL)

JR, my friend! Thank you for your colorful (literally!) reply!! (It looks like it took some of your valuable time to produce!) Yes, I asked for feedback on whether or not I was crossing the line in proposing that sin and law were abolished for the believer in Christ. The majority seems to have weighed in on the side of radical freedom thus far, praise God!  As for your input, I certainly appreciate it and have read over it NLT 3 times to be sure I understand your point. I think that I have it, and having done a little research, I may have a reply which answers all 5 of your points.

"The curse of the law is the hand-writing against us... It must be understood of the ceremonial law, the hand-writing of ordinances, the ceremonial institutions or the law of commandments contained in ordinances (Eph. 2:15), which was a yoke to the Jews and a partition-wall to the Gentiles. The Lord Jesus took it out of the way, nailed it to his cross; that is, disannulled the obligation of it, that all might see and be satisfied that it was no more binding."

Henry, Matthew. "Commentary on Colossians 2." Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible. Blue Letter Bible. 01 Mar 1996. 22 Jul 2007.
<http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/Col/Col002.html>.

....and...

"the law of commandments contained in ordinances." "The handwriting" (alluding to the Decalogue, the representative of the law, written by the hand of God) is the whole law, the obligatory bond, under which all lay;" "Not only was the law against us by its demands, but also an adversary to us by its accusations"

Jamieson, Robert; A.R. Fausset; and David Brown. "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians." Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Blue Letter Bible. 19 Feb 2000. 22 Jul 2007.
<http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Col/Col002.html>.

JR, if my reply above is confusing at all please feel free to post again. I look forward to dialoguing with you! ~mike

I put together an answer to JR's comment, but I got sidetracked and couldn't post it before now. I agree with Mike's response; it's very much along the lines of what I was thinking. For what it's worth, here is my comment. 

I think that we should compare the following Scriptures:

The entire letters of Ephesians and Colossians parallel each other in numerous places, as is clear from simply scanning them. It seems to me (and other commentators) that the particular passages I've quoted from these two letters are parallel to one another. While Colossians talks about the "handwriting of ordinances that was against us" being nailed to the cross, Ephesians talks about "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" being abolished in Jesus' flesh ("ordinances" is sometimes translated "decrees" in other versions, but it is the same Greek word in both passages). While there's a clear theme of Jew and Gentile being reconciled to one another that is in the Ephesians passage but is not in Colossians passage, both passages talk about God and sinners being reconciled in Jesus through the cross by taking away "that which was against us/that which was contrary to us/the enmity," i.e., the Law. The Romans passage talks about the believer being "dead to the Law/delivered from the Law" by "the body of Christ" so that he "should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter," where "the letter" refers to the Old Covenant, i.e., the Law (see also Romans 2:25-29, 2 Corinthians 3).

The question about the relationship of a person to the Law is answered by clarifying whether we are talking about "in Christ" or "in the world." Outside of Christ, a person is under the Law and is therefore under condemnation because he is a sinner. But, those who are in Christ "are not under law but under grace" (Romans 6:14) and have "no condemnation" (Romans 8:1). This is why Paul calls circumcision (a commandment of the Law) irrelevant in Christ and says

Great post Mike!  Dontcha just love how people get all kindsa mixed up confusing things that pertain to our standing before God (i.e. "positional" aspects) with things that pertain to us amongst humanity (i.e. "practical" aspects)?  This is where 99% of the debates and "vehement discussions" come from - confusing the things that are spoken positionally with those that are practically observable.

As for freedom, I don't remember off the top of my head whether you read my post Freedom and Independence or not, but this and that are good complements for each other.

So often we're like a caged animal at the zoo but with the door to the cage unlocked: we just see the bars and assume we're locked in (much like as we see our sins and assume we're in bondage to them still), but we never go over and try to push the door open.  If we did, we might be surprised at the results! :)

Norm, I didn't see a response to your question about Acts 5:1-11 (if there was and I just didn't see it, forgive me).  With Ananias and Saphirra -- assuming their faith was genuine to begin with -- I'm certain they were still saved individuals, even though they contrived such a foolish and needless sin against the Holy Spirit and subsequently received a temporal judgement for that sin.  I've always seen it as a disciplinary action in response to their sin more for the benefit of the rest of the church than for them.  Many people are so caught up in this mindset that losing one's life is such a bad thing that can happen, but it's not so for the Christian -- to live may be Christ, but to die is gain as absent from the body equals present with the Lord.  And while the display put on by A&S is truly a self-servin