Are Legalism and Licentiousness Really Equal Threats?

October 9, 2024 Pastor Chris Oswald

Thesis Modern evangelicalism's treatment of legalism and licentiousness as equal threats is both biblically and experientially false—licentiousness is far more destructive, and our fear of over-applying Scripture leaves us unable to recognize and combat sin in its early stages.

Series

Ten Commandments

Type

Topical

Tone

—

Method

—

What's in this sermon

The shape of the argument

15 units across exposition, application, illustration, theological claim, and conclusion. The pastor's argument is built from these moving parts.

Pastoral correction · unit #7

"Oswald applies the developmental model of sin directly to the listener's life, explaining that sins begin small and grow if not confessed and put to death. He acknowledges the discomfort of the illustration while maintaining its essential point: early intervention in sin's development is critical."

Doctrinal loci· 6 surfaced

Hamartiology · 8 Bibliology · 7 Ethics / Moral Theology · 5 Anthropology · 2 Sanctification · 1 Theology Proper · 1

Bible citations· 6

Illustrations· 2

analogy · unit #5 — Oswald uses his own fetal-to-adult development as an analogy for how sins exist in different developmental stages. Lust is to adultery as a fetus is to an adult—the same entity at different stages of growth. This makes the concept of sin's progression concrete and memorable while acknowledging the illustration's limitations.
historical example · unit #10 — Oswald uses the historical pattern of post-revolutionary fascism as an illustration of humanity's deep need for boundaries. When societies throw off all restraint and experience the resulting chaos, they over-correct toward authoritarianism because lawlessness reveals destructive forces that threaten civilization itself.

Theological claims· 5

The Puritan maximalist approach to interpreting God's law—seeking to apply it as broadly and deeply as possible—is superior to modern evangelicalism's minimalist approach, which fears over-application and thus misses wisdom and good application. unit #1
God's maximalist view of sin reveals that humanity is far worse than we think—he sees hearts, intentions, and all potential violations we miss because we are desensitized to sin. unit #4
Modern evangelicalism's anti-legalism and minimalist hermeneutic creates flat, oversimplified theology that leaves believers unable to recognize sin in seed form and thus constantly surprised by full-grown sin. unit #8
Contrary to the common evangelical teaching that legalism and licentiousness are equally dangerous ditches, licentiousness is far more destructive—biblically, logically, and experientially—and poses a much greater threat to individual and societal flourishing. unit #9
The Westminster divines' maximalist approach to Scripture—seeking to shed maximum light by identifying sin in all its developmental stages—aligns with Jesus's own method and serves human flourishing far better than minimalist approaches. unit #11

Quotations· 1

"legalism and licentiousness as two ditches, and you know, we have to do what we can to stay in the middle of the gospel and we don't want to get into the legalism ditch or the licentiousness ditch" — Tim Keller (unit #9)

Read it

Full transcript

20,326 characters 15 units ~23 min reading time Listen instead →

0 · Oswald opens the podcast with personal context about recording difficulties and situates the episode within the ongoing Ten Commandments sermon series

Foreign. Welcome, welcome, welcome. Long time. Welcome to the Providence Podcast. My name is Chris Oswald, senior pastor at Providence Community Church, and it has been quite some time since I've been able to record a podcast. Now, this is all due to the fact that I keep getting relocated. I am, I am a stranger and a sojourner in my own office spaces, but every time I lose an office space, something happens. I wind up having to sort of figure out a new configuration for the podcast. And we're, we're up and running with, I think, probably what will be a makeshift situation until probably about a month from now until we'll be able to turn one of the spare bedrooms in my house into a little bit of a studio space. I'm looking forward to that. Looking forward to more regular podcasting. Well, today is the 9th of October. It's a Tuesday. No, it's a Wednesday. And we've already had a sermon on adultery last Sunday. And we're wrapping up, we're getting ready to wrap up the Ten Commandments series soon. This week coming up, we'll be talking about stealing.

1 · Oswald contrasts two hermeneutical approaches: the Puritan maximalist method that seeks to extract maximum light and application from Scripture, and the modern evangelical minimalist method driven by fear of legalism

One of the things that I've noticed through this series is that you can take sort of a maximalist perspective on interpreting and applying these. And that's what you see the Puritans doing. That's what you see in the Westminster Confession or the Westminster Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism and so on and so forth. And so most of my study work for this sermon series has been really in that kind of 1600s, 1700s, a little bit of the 1800s time period where people really treated God's word as a light. And they were like, okay, here's the truth. How can we apply this to as many places as possible and get the most out of this idea as possible? I've referenced some of this in a couple sermons, that there is a maximalist sort of perspective that so loves the Word of God that it meditates on it day and night and seeks to figure out how do we apply this text to as many places as possible? How do we get as much light out of this text as possible? And then there's another perspective that I would say is just very modern and evangelical. And the big fear, of course, in evangelicalism, wrongly, in my opinion, is legalism. And so the fear is always to over apply God's word to places where it doesn't speak specifically and so on and so forth. And boy, I'll just tell you, that is not the way that our forefathers handled the word of God, as you can see, if you would read these catechisms and confessions and so forth, they are really eagerly looking for places to apply these truths as far out as possible. Whereas we are so concerned about, you know, about putting something on someone, putting an expectation on someone that is beyond what the Bible does, that we're so concerned about that that we miss a lot of opportunities for wisdom and good application of God's Word. In the Westminster Confession, we see the phrase good and appropriate, or something like that. I can't remember it exactly, but it's this idea that the Word teaches what it teaches, and then there are good and appropriate implications of what it teaches that apply to other places in life as well. I bring all that up because we've seen that the. When we turn to say the commandment about taking the Lord's name in vain, and then we turn to the Westminster Catechism, we see all of these areas that we would not have thought about. The Same is true with adultery and murder and so on and so forth. And so you'll see some of that again this Sunday, Lord willing, if I'm able to preach, then you'll see that again. You'll see this interpretive maximalism. I would argue that that's really from the Lord, that that perspective, that approach is really from the Lord. And I want to kind of walk you through some scriptures today, specifically on the last two commandments, murder and adultery. So I want to point you to the development we see over time that is obviously led by God himself.

2 · Oswald reads Matthew 5:21-26 and demonstrates how Jesus himself employs maximalist interpretation by expanding the commandment against murder to include anger and insult

And that would show up in St. Matthew, chapter 5, verse. Let me read that to you. Matthew 5. 21. You have heard that it was said to those of old, you shall not murder, and whoever murders will be liable to judgment. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment. Whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council, and whoever says, you fool, will be liable to hellfire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and they remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go first, be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. Truly, I say to you, you'll never get out until you have paid the last penny. So here you have an example of Jesus doing this very same thing we see that the catechists are doing, and that is that there's this commandment, do not murder. And to apply that in a very strict and compartmentalized way would be to miss the heart behind the commandment. What Jesus is doing in Matthew 5, 21:26 is he showing the heart behind the commandment. And that heart includes anger. And now we can go to the next section in Jesus teaching in Matthew 24, in Matthew 5 and see that he does the exact same thing with the command related to adultery.

3 · Oswald reads Matthew 5:27-30 and shows Jesus expanding the adultery commandment to include lustful intent

Listen to Matthew 5:27. You have heard that it was said, you shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away, for it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off, throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than the whole body, that your whole body go to hell. So here again, same idea. We see the strict commandment itself in Exodus 20. You shall not commit adultery. And rather than keep it exceedingly tight and say, well, this only applies in this one way, Jesus says, no, there's layers to this, and there are other implications that go beyond them. The most obvious one, he says here that if you look at a woman with lustful intent, you've already committed adultery with her in your heart.

4 · Oswald draws a theological implication from Jesus's maximalist interpretation: God sees far more sin than we do because he sees hearts and intentions, and his perfect holiness means he is not desensitized to sin as we are

Now, what I want you to understand is that there's a dynamic going on here that I haven't been able to figure out in another way. I only have one good illustration for this, but I don't love it, if that makes sense. But let me share it with you, because maybe you'll be able to see why I don't love it. But I think it's probably the right one. Okay, so what we get from this development we see from Exodus to Matthew is that, first of all, we get the idea that God really. God really was seeing a lot more potential violations of these commandments than we would see. And so it just reminds you that, my goodness, what the view of humanity must look like from God's perspective, who sees perfectly, who sees hearts and intentions, and who's so holy too, you know, he's not in any way desensitized to sin like we are. We're super desensitized to sin and he isn't. And you just realize, like, oh, my goodness, like, what? What must we look like to him as a people? You know collectively, because it's a lot more than. It's a lot worse than you would think, that's for sure.

5 · Oswald uses his own fetal-to-adult development as an analogy for how sins exist in different developmental stages

So there's one idea, the other idea is just that, and this is the illustration I don't love, but I don't know how else to talk about it, is that sins tend to have like a, almost like a, a fetus to 50 year old kind of range, if that makes any sense. Like, okay, so here's. I'm me, right? I'm almost 51 year away. And I was born in 1975, in August. So let's picture me in, let's say May of 1975. Where was I in May of 1975? Did I exist? Yeah, I did. I was in my mama's belly, you know, I was hanging out there, just like doing the Midwestern, you know, fetal thing, the Midwestern fetus, you know, growing up on corn and you know, all that stuff. So yeah, I was around. I wasn't the same as I am now, but it was me. It was me back in April of 1975, you know, and so the idea being that I'm me now. I was me then, but I'm definitely, you know, a much bigger me now than I was then. And I'm just more developed. I mean, just in general, you know, lots of cellular division has taken place. Well, that's. I think you see a glimpse of that in Jesus's teachings on these sins. It's like, is looking at a woman with lust in your heart adultery? Yes. Is it the same as sleeping with a woman who's not your wife? No, it is in the same. It's the same species. Is that the way we should say this? It's just a smaller version. And if it's allowed to continue to grow, it will grow into this bigger thing, typically. But even in the smaller thing, it's still sin. So it's still a sin. It's still the same kind of sin. It belongs to the same species, I guess. And it's just a question of how far it, its development does it get. And so, you know, I was me in, you know, March of 1975, just a lot smaller, simpler version of me. And now, all these years later, I'm still the same person, but I'm just, I've just expanded and grown.

6 · Oswald grounds his developmental model of sin in James 1:12-15, showing that Scripture itself uses fetal/birth language to describe sin's progression from desire to conception to full growth to death

Okay, so let's think about that with sin. The verse that is the best that I know of, that teaches this is in James, James, chapter one, verse. Let's start at verse 12. Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial. For when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God. For God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one. That's just some context for you, but here's the verse that I see kind of explaining some of this development of sin. Verse 14, James, chapter 1, verse 14. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire, when it has conceived, gives birth to sin. And sin, when it is fully grown, brings forth death. So it's this picture that is very kind of intentionally. I did some Greek work on this years ago. So I just going to go with my gut memory here that this language here was fetal language. I seem to remember that certainly it feels that way in the English. Then desire, when it has conceived, gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown, brings forth death.

7 · Oswald applies the developmental model of sin directly to the listener's life, explaining that sins begin small and grow if not confessed and put to death

So I think that the thing you need to understand about a lot of these sins is that there is a fetal version and there is an adult version, and it starts small and it keeps growing, keeps growing, keeps growing. Now this is where I think, this is why I don't like the illustration, because you wind up thinking about terminating a sin that is in a. A smaller state, a fetal state. Obviously that's not. That's not a way of thinking that, you know, any of us feel comfortable with. So that's why I don't like this illustration. Maybe you can figure out a better one for me to use down the road, but we're going to stick with it. The idea is that when desire is sort of floating out there, it still hasn't moved entirely into sin. There is a moment when the sin emerges. In Jesus discussion of lust, he would say that that moment was when you look at a woman with a lustful intent. That is a baby version of what it could grow into if it is not confessed and put to death. God still sees it as a kind of adultery, but not the same as if it were to give full, you know, as if it were to fully express itself.

8 · Oswald argues that minimalist, anti-legalism hermeneutics leave believers unprepared to recognize and combat sin in its early stages, resulting in repeated surprise at full-grown sin

So, yeah, that's the idea. I think you. I think that when we start talking about when we start handling God's word, especially God's law, there is a temptation to oversimplify and make it as flat and as particular as possible. But that is not helpful to us because what's going on is that we need to be able to see that we need to see sin in its small seed forms so that we know how to handle it there before it gets full grown. And when you tell someone, when you create this sort of anti legalism kind of way of living, you're just setting people up to be surprised by full grown sin over and over and over again. I sure hope that makes sense. It's been a while since I've done a podcast, guys. I'm sorry if that didn't make sense, but the big argument I would want to make is that I think in line with what I said in a sermon related to honoring our forefathers, I think we've turned the Bible into like a bunch of IKEA furniture where it's just extraordinarily flat plastic and self assembly. And I think that the old way, the old 16th, 17th, 18th century way, that stuff looked baroque. It was extraordinarily complex. And I'm not arguing that we need to do exactly the same thing. And I'm not arguing that the Westminster Confession is God's word. What I am arguing is that these are men worthy of respect and that their approach to theology, I think is probably more biblical than ours. We're always looking to limit and there we're always looking to sort of expand.

9 · Oswald directly challenges Tim Keller's "two ditches" metaphor, arguing from biblical, logical, and experiential grounds that legalism and licentiousness are not equally dangerous

Lastly, I want to conclude with something that I've shared with a number of you over the years, and some of you might not have heard this before, but when we hear someone like Tim Keller for instance, who I think has made good contributions of course to the kingdom, but when we hear him talking about legalism and licentiousness as two ditches, and you know, we have to do what we can to stay in the middle of the gospel and we don't want to get into the legalism ditch or the licentiousness ditch. I will tell you straight up that I've lived around human beings for a long time and I'm a payer attentioner, I'm a noticer, and I will tell you that both from a biblical perspective, a logical perspective and an experiential perspective, legalists are definitely exist and, and they definitely are wrong. But I will tell you it is a way worse way, a way safer ditch to fall into than to fall into headlong into licentiousness. So I think we need to be clear that one ditch the ditch of hating the law, the ditch of feeling like God's word is a burden, the ditch of being antinomian, the Psalm 2 ditch of cast his burn, we will cast his bonds from us. That is a way bigger ditch and way harder to get out of. And you're going to hurt yourself a lot more if you fall into that than if you kind of accidentally go a little too legalistic. And you know, for a while you're kind of a. But you're kind of, you know, a jerk and judgmental and so forth. You need to deal with those things. And of course, the regular preaching of the gospel will deal with both. But I want to be clear that all this old sort of early 2000s, late 90s explanations of legalism and licentiousness as being equal ditches. Not true. Not true at all. It's not true for you and your well being, for your neighbor's good so forth. A world that has no laws and no boundaries is a far worse world than a world that has too many.

10 · Oswald uses the historical pattern of post-revolutionary fascism as an illustration of humanity's deep need for boundaries

Ultimately, people need instruction and guidance and. And there's a reason after why, and I'm not arguing for this, but there's a reason why after moments of societal chaos and revolution and throwing off of all restraint, you almost always have some kind of refractory period where there is almost like a push toward, like a fascism. And that's because people can see the monster that exists in the darkness when you walk past the rules, you know, and they see this monster and it looks like this thing is going to kill the whole world. And so they very quickly put on a bunch of rules, not arguing for fascism, not arguing for stringency, for stringency sake.

11 · Oswald synthesizes his argument by affirming that the Westminster divines' maximalist approach aligns with Jesus's method—using Scripture to shed maximum light and wisdom by recognizing sin in all its developmental stages

But when these Westminster divines in the 1600s were looking at all of this, I think they were wise in understanding that God's word, generally speaking, is just to shed light and truth and wisdom. And we need to use it as much as possible, as far as possible. One of the ways that they did this, I think is in keeping with Jesus's approach, is to see how, you know a sin in its full born ness, you know, like stealing from someone, like that's sin in its full birth stage, its full size stage rather. But there are all sorts of like fetal versions of that sin that still matter a great deal. And if you can catch them there, you still need grace even then. But it's a different kind of situation for you and for yours and for human happiness and flourishing and so on and so forth.

12 · Oswald closes the theological content and transitions to church announcements, mentioning upcoming podcast improvements, the men's retreat, and various church gatherings

So I think that'll do it for me. I really wanted to do this mostly just to get back in the habit of doing it and have some really cool things planned for this podcast as soon as I get that studio space figured out, which I think will probably be in about a month. All right, well, looking Forward to this weekend. We've got the men's retreat happening Friday, Saturday, and I guess Sunday morning and getting my sermon all done here early so that we can, I can kick back and hang out with the guys there. Looking forward to that. Tonight I know is a women's Bible study. Last night was another women's get together. Lots of cool things happening at Providence.

13 · Oswald shifts into direct pastoral instruction about the building campaign, explaining the prayer focus for October, the two-year giving window, and the return policy if the goal isn't met

Oh, hey, one last thing. I'm not going to get into it now, but you know, you've probably been wondering what's the next step with the building campaign and so forth. Well, I'll try to remember to talk about this on Sunday and then I want to do a podcast on this. But really what we're asking you to do right now is we're really just asking you for the whole month of October to just be praying about what God would have you give to help us get this done. And one thing that some of the deacons and elder guys were telling me that I needed to clarify because I, I think it was just assumed, but apparently it's not, is when we ask you to give for this, we'll tell you how to do that. And then what we'll do is we'll say like, this is a two year window for this to happen. We really anticipate, friends, that this would happen this summer, but we would put a two year window on it. And then that money, if you were to give it, just sits there until we have the money we need to do it. And if at the end of that two year period we haven't gotten there, then whatever you gave just goes back to you. So want you to know that guys told me that that was something that people wouldn't necessarily assume me on the church budget side of things would know. Like, well, that's just the way that would have to work. But they were like, yeah, you should mention that because I think people would want to know that. So for now we're just asking you to pray. And then in like November, December, we will ask folks to give. And if you were to give a sizable amount of money and you're like, well, I don't want this converted into programming or this or that. It's like, no, that's not how this works. If you give for this and we can't cross that finish line for some reason, which again we don't anticipate, but if for some reason we're not able to cross that finish line, that money goes back to you at the end of a two year period for us to try to make it happen. So. Yeah. And by the way, if you have questions about any of this, this is a simple project. This is a. Funding this, you know, it's not a very expensive project. It shouldn't take a long time, all that, to say this. If you have questions, they're probably relatively easy to answer if not by your. Now, I've tried to keep the community group leaders up to date, the deacons, so they. They probably know most of what I know. But if you. If you wanted to just ask me, that's fine as well.

14 · Oswald closes with pastoral warmth, expressing gratitude for the congregation and podcast listeners, sharing personal details about his location and family, and offering a benediction focused on the Lord's peace and light dwelling in households

All right. Well, God bless you, friends. I'm so grateful to be a pastor at your local church. I'm so grateful that you listened to this podcast, and I've heard so many kind words about the sermons recently, and that's always so encouraging. Yeah. Anyway, I'm just so grateful for what God's doing at Providence these days. And with that, I'll end today and check in on the kiddos. I'm sitting upstairs at the church right now. Knox is meeting down in the basement. They've got another hour and a half to go until they're done with school. And they actually get fall break next week, so they won't have school next week. I know the teachers are probably pretty excited about that. All right, well, God bless you, my friends. And until next time, just pray that the Lord's peace and his light would rest not only in your heart, but in the heart of all those in your home. Be well.

Where this fits

Recent preaching context

The three sermons immediately preceding this one in the preaching schedule.

Aug 4, 2024

The Lord is a Man of War, Part 2

The God who destroys His enemies in Exodus 15 is the same God throughout Scripture, and the cross reveals His preferred means of destroying enemies by destroying them in salvation through identification with Christ's death and resurrection.

Aug 18, 2024

Two Mountains: One Mandate

Christians have moved from Mount Sinai (terror under the Law with Moses as mediator) to Mount Zion (peace in the Gospel with Jesus as mediator), but the mandate to worship God alone has not changed — only now we are empowered by the Holy Spirit who writes the Law on our hearts and fuels obedience through remembrance and gratitude.

Oct 6, 2024

You Were Made For Love

You were made for covenantal love, not lust, and Christ has paid the price to free you from the lies and brokenness of sexual sin.