Define Legalism Please

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amazing Grace

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
I am involved in a recent study on what constitutes legalism or pharisitical behavior. I know the charge of labeling one a legalist is the harshest accusation in some corners. When some here are accused of being legalists, I agree in some cases and disagree in others. But it may be because I have a faulty definition of the term. Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that Legalism, as understood by me, is definitely more than a works salvation. I know of no one who espouses salvation by works. Yet where I get confused is when one believes in salvation by Grace, and kept by works. What is the correct understanding of obedience vs legalism? Nomism, moralism, Law Sanctification are all lumped into one category by me and I am struggling in having a correct understanding. Anything that smacks of a Law-based code of conduct, or performance orientation is labeled legalism by me.

What say ye please?
 
"Legalism" is:

1) adding man made teachings to God's laws and trying to bind men's consciences with them
2) trusting in one's own obedience as a basis for righteousness and salvation
3) outward obedience alone without right inward motive (a heart to obey and please God)
 
I agree but just add that number 2 is the motivation behind 1 and 3. The desire to manufacture our own righteousness is the wicked root that brings forth the wicked fruit of tradition and vanity.
 
The issue is usually that many Christians who are preaching holiness and biblical separation are accused by others of "adding man made teachings to God's laws and trying to bind men's consciences with them" even though they are preaching about the manifestation of the outward obedience due to the right inward motives and not the least bit invoking obedience as one's basis for salvation. And this accusation will never end, because our sinful hearts always want to draw us from God's holiness.
 
I'll try...

Legalism is: "A heart that tries to impress God rather than one impressed by Him."
 
Jesus Christ is the Perfect Example for the Christian. Christ was obedient to His Father and knew the sweetness of being assured of His Father's love on the evidence of His obedience. At the same time, Christ separated Himself from the legalists of His day so that He cannot in any sense be numbered with them. Hence it cannot be legalism in and of itself to seek to be obedient to God or to derive a certain kind of assurance from that obedience. There must be some other factor which perverts the Christian's obedience and assurance so as to render him legalistic. And that other factor is nothing other than the deceitfulness of that indwelling sin which remains in the Christian. But herein lies the rub -- to accuse another Christian of legalism on the basis of the remnants of sin abiding in him is to accuse oneself of being a legalist even in one's attempt to avoid legalism. Afterall, is not your attempt to avoid legalism an expression of your desire to be obedient to God? and when you have assured yourself that you are not a legalist have you not derived that assurance from the fact that you have obeyed God's call to turn from legalism? and when you stand as the accuser of another's legalism are you not in reality boasting over your own abstinence from this sin and obedience to God? And right at that point the apostle's words apply as equally to you as to any self-righteous man: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things" (Romans 2:1).

May God be merciful to me, a self-righteous, self-condemned, legalistic sinner!
 
There's nothing like a parable to communicate an otherwise difficult concept. Key words in bold:

Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

Luke 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

Luke 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

Luke 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

Luke 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Click to expand...
 
Legalism would consists of:
- Attempting to please God by one's own good works - whether for justification or sanctification (and obviously glorification). It means, instead of trusting in the work of Christ alone, the grace of God alone, I please God out of a heart to score "brownie points" before him. A legalistic heart would then seek to relegate the Christian life to just a few matters of their life. Both antinomians and hyper-fundamentalists are guilty of this. One separate "church life" from "secular life" while the other believes that stuff like soulwinning, conservative dress/music, etc. will cover more serious matters (e.g. loving others as oneself, loving the brethren).

Legalism is not:
- Attempting to obey the Word of God in one's Christian life. Different believers have different convictions based on their readings of Scripture. One thing must be noticed - the Christian who enjoys more liberties must spare a thought for others (esp. a Christian brother/sister) and respectfully restrain his/her liberties when the situation demands, lest he offends the other party. The Christian who has a stricter conviction about something should explain why he believes, and not condemn other believers for being in error or for not sharing their convictions, in matters where the Word of God is silent.
 
Joshua said:
Curt said:
It's the opposite of antinomianism.
Click to expand...
Actually, I would argue that legalism is just another form of antinomianism. It is what happens when we create laws of our own with which substitutes God's Law. God's Law is the law, hence it is anti-law to change his Law with our own lax "laws" in its place.
Click to expand...

Reasonably stated. That is not the way the terms are usually used, but I accept your usage.
 
This thread contains some really, really excellent stuff.

I just preached a sermon yesterday on Jer.7:1-15, The Failure of Ritual, that deals with the contrary extreme from legalism--ritualism. BOTH are forms of antinomianism, as Joshua already ably pointed out.

I will just add that posts two and three get right to the heart of the question, right away.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
This thread contains some really, really excellent stuff.

I just preached a sermon yesterday on Jer.7:1-15, The Failure of Ritual, that deals with the contrary extreme from legalism--ritualism. BOTH are forms of antinomianism, as Joshua already ably pointed out.

I will just add that posts two and three get right to the heart of the question, right away.
Click to expand...

Where can one go to hear said sermon, Rev Buchanan?
 
Legalism is when we build fences to keep ourselves from committing certain sins. Soon these fences -- instead of the sins they were designed to guard against -- become the issue. (Jerry Bridges)
 
Definition of legalism.

I thought about this for a long time a few years ago. I ended up with five attitudes that I believe can be called legalism:

1) Obedience to the law is some part of the basis of justification. (Rom. 3:20)
2) There are moral requirements not prescribed in Scripture. (James 4:11)
3) The law can make us holy. (Rom. 8:3)
4) We have the power in ourselves to obey the law (Phil. 2:13)
5) We can ignore the spirit of the law as long as we obey the letter of the law. (Matt. 23:23)

I have wondered if these can somehow be unified into one principle, although I have not figured out how without generalizing them into oblivion.
 
ValiantforTruth said:
I thought about this for a long time a few years ago. I ended up with five attitudes that I believe can be called legalism:

1) Obedience to the law is some part of the basis of justification. (Rom. 3:20)
2) There are moral requirements not prescribed in Scripture. (James 4:11)
3) The law can make us holy. (Rom. 8:3)
4) We have the power in ourselves to obey the law (Phil. 2:13)
5) We can ignore the spirit of the law as long as we obey the letter of the law. (Matt. 23:23)

I have wondered if these can somehow be unified into one principle, although I have not figured out how without generalizing them into oblivion.
Click to expand...

I agree with points 1,4 and 5. But the contexts of Romans 8 and James 4 make me doubt points 2 and 3. The law does have a role to play in making us holy, but it could not do so by itself. Also, is the speaking of evil in James 4 really about talking about extra-biblical moral requirements? It seems to be talking about outright slandering.
 
Man made rules that are not found in the bible.

IE a former college I went to frowned upon men under 23 having beards. It was a big no no. I looked like a baby with out my facial hair, now I have one sported all the time. I'm growing a full beard right now. :)
 
Sonny said:
Man made rules that are not found in the bible.

IE a former college I went to frowned upon men under 23 having beards. It was a big no no. I looked like a baby with out my facial hair, now I have one sported all the time. I'm growing a full beard right now. :)
Click to expand...

And what was their "biblical rationale" for that?
 
Jason, what role do you think the law plays in making us holy?

As to James 4, it might have been clearer if v.12 had also been listed, but I think the reference wasn't so much to evil speaking, as to making yourself a judge. But in support of that point number 2, I would point to the sufficiency of Scripture. If the Scripture can thoroughly furnish the man of God to every good work, surely there is no moral duty which is not derivable from Scripture - or Scripture wouldn't be equipping you for every good work.
 
py3ak said:
Jason, what role do you think the law plays in making us holy?

As to James 4, it might have been clearer if v.12 had also been listed, but I think the reference wasn't so much to evil speaking, as to making yourself a judge. But in support of that point number 2, I would point to the sufficiency of Scripture. If the Scripture can thoroughly furnish the man of God to every good work, surely there is no moral duty which is not derivable from Scripture - or Scripture wouldn't be equipping you for every good work.
Click to expand...

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

The law is necessary in the sanctification of a believer, and I'm sure all of us would affirm this. So was just thinking that point 2 needs to be tightened up so as not to exclude the role of the law in sanctification, though it is certainly not all that is necessary. I just don't think that James 4 is really pointing towards extra-biblical moral requirements, but I agree with the point in principle and that all moral duty is derivable from scriptures. Of course, the tricky part always lies with whether certain boundaries and practices that well-meaning Christians have prescribed are in fact derivable from scriptures. Which explains the never-ending debates on pop culture and worldliness.
 
Legalism is pride. Which is the root of all sin In my humble opinion. Being proud of yourself for attaining a certain standard (which can vary enourmously from person to person), and thinking God is pleased with you because of it. We are all legalists to some extent, we all want to earn our salvation to some extent, and we all want to be thought well of by other men. I think Rev. Winzer summed it up perfectly and more articulately than I'm able to.

Just as an example, I think possibly the greatest danger to reformed folks is the superiority complex. Many reformed folks appear to be more intellectual than our arminian friends. More interested in theology, more interested in the weightier matters of the Christian walk, and knowing we have right doctrine as opposed to believing error. These are all good things, but they can lead us to feeling superior to other Christians. We feel we have to educate others, and often reformed folks can come across quite arrogant. We all need to guard our hearts against legalism, because when Jesus was talking to the pharisees He was adressing people like you and me.
 
Sonny said:
Man made rules that are not found in the bible.

IE a former college I went to frowned upon men under 23 having beards. It was a big no no. I looked like a baby with out my facial hair, now I have one sported all the time. I'm growing a full beard right now. :)
Click to expand...

I don't think your definition is sufficient. We have many "man made rules" that are not in the bible. Most laws of the land are man made and not found in the bible, i.e. traffic laws. What was the reasoning behind the no beards rule that you feel made it legalism and not just a school requirement? I am not allowed to have facial hair at my job, but I don't think it's legalism in any way.
 
I'm very familiar with the circles that Sonny has been exposed to. I went to a similar college that had the same rule. Their reasoning behind the rule is the same reasoning you bring up Andres--institutional standards. But there are also those in our circles that say that facial hair is a sign of rebellion; this dates back to the 60s where growing facial hair was in protest against the war. This same group would say that women who wear pants are sinning.
 
Kiffin said:
I'm very familiar with the circles that Sonny has been exposed to. I went to a similar college that had the same rule. Their reasoning behind the rule is the same reasoning you bring up Andres--institutional standards. But there are also those in our circles that say that facial hair is a sign of rebellion; this dates back to the 60s where growing facial hair was in protest against the war. This same group would say that women who wear pants are sinning.
Click to expand...

sorry, but for clarification, are you stating that you believe "institutional standards" equate to legalism or is it because it was said having a beard was a sin? If it was the latter, then did the school specifically, outright make this stance known or was it just something that was assumed? I ask because I know many institutions that prohit facial hair simply because many find it unsightly. I deem these simply a matter of preference and not one of legalism.
 
jayce475 said:
I agree with points 1,4 and 5. But the contexts of Romans 8 and James 4 make me doubt points 2 and 3. The law does have a role to play in making us holy, but it could not do so by itself. Also, is the speaking of evil in James 4 really about talking about extra-biblical moral requirements? It seems to be talking about outright slandering.
Click to expand...

Let me explain how I understand the exegesis of 2 & 3.

James 4:11 - "Do not speak evil of a brother or judge a brother". We know from other texts of Scripture that there is right judging and there is wrong judging. So James 4:11 is talking about sinful judging, not all judging. What is the criterion for sinful judging? It is judging according to a standard other than God's law. This makes the next part clear, that "whoever speaks evil of his brother and judges his brother speaks evil of the law and judges the law." If I judge my brother unrighteously (by a standard other than God's law) I am saying that God's law is not good enough; it needs this other thing added to it. Thus I disparage the law and judge the law.

Romans 8:1-4 - What I mean by #3 is that the law does not have the power within itself to produce the holiness that it requires. The law is necessary for sanctification in the sense that it is the criterion of holiness, but it cannot make us holy. Only Christ's work and the Holy Spirit can produce holiness in a sinful person. This is how I understand Romans 8:1-4, that the law has no power to make us holy, but that God did it by sending his son.
 
I remember St. Augustine using the phrase "The Spirit of the law" and how Jesus summed up The Spirit of the law with His 2 greatest commandments.

just saying
 
Joshua said:
earl40 said:
I remember St. Augustine using the phrase "The Spirit of the law" and how Jesus summed up The Spirit of the law with His 2 greatest commandments.

just saying
Click to expand...
And the 2 greatest commandments sum up the 10 commandments. So what are you getting at?
Click to expand...

More than the 10 "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Legalism In my most humble opinion can be summed up by not following The Spirit of the law as summed up by Jesus in His summation of the two commandments. Augustine wrote extensively on the "Spirit of the law" being the guide in following it. :)
 
Joshua said:
earl40 said:
Joshua said:
earl40 said:
I remember St. Augustine using the phrase "The Spirit of the law" and how Jesus summed up The Spirit of the law with His 2 greatest commandments.

just saying
Click to expand...
And the 2 greatest commandments sum up the 10 commandments. So what are you getting at?
Click to expand...

More than the 10 "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Legalism In my most humble opinion can be summed up by not following The Spirit of the law as summed up by Jesus in His summation of the two commandments. Augustine wrote extensively on the "Spirit of the law" being the guide in following it. :)
Click to expand...
I'm still not "getting" it. Of course it's "more than 10," but the Decalogue is wherein God's moral law is summarily comprehended. Your whole "Spirit of the Law" comment without any elaboration, or so much as a specific reference to Augustine's works where one can read it is too vague to effectually get across a point in the thread. :2cents:
Click to expand...

I guess when I read Augustine's writings on Spirit of the law I saw something different than you. The intent of the heart towards God and his neighbor can and does break legalism. Of course this does not preclude the finer points of the law, in that they can guide us towards legalism if we follow the law by letter only.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Sabbatarian legalism?
Replies
24
Views
3K
T. E. Rickard
T. E. Rickard
C
  • Locked
Define Repentance
Replies
17
Views
5K
danmpem
danmpem
R
  • Locked
Antinomianism vs Legalism
Replies
1
Views
1K
rookie
rookie
Scott Bushey
  • Locked
Legalism and antinomianism
Replies
1
Views
2K
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Sailor
cupotea
  • Locked
Challenge: Define Love
Replies
6
Views
2K
Scott Bushey
Scott Bushey
Back
Top