It is often explained that legalism consists of supplementing God’s law with man’s law or unwarranted interpretation thereof.
With that in mind, when approaching our catechisms we find lengthy expositions of God’s law. It has been asserted that if even one part of these expositions stray at any point from the actual meaning of scripture then the catechism is there in danger of becoming legalistic to that extent. At face value I believe that we can all agree on that, just as the Divines surely would have. This is plainly why the painstaking effort of providing scripture proofs for every line of instruction was commissioned.
One example given would be WLC 139, which while expositing the 7th Commandment includes instruction against sins such as idleness and gluttony.
Of course the first order of business would be to examine the belabored scripture proofs. But this does not always settle the matter. There are those who readily confirm [regarding the above example] that idleness and gluttony are sinful, yet even in light of the scripture references will still deny that those sins qualify as part of God’s specific commandment against adultery, thus rendering such interpretation as “legalistic" to some extent.
But is this a moot point? Apart from the confessional believer affirming the scriptural warrant of idleness and gluttony within the realm of adultery, does the charge of "legalism" fall flat simply because those are biblically acknowledged sins in their own right and not contrived sins of man's imagination? Or is there more to the matter?
As we have all seen before this issue is raised in more complicated fashion from time to time around other discussions of proactive Christian duty and obligation [i.e. worship, civil magistrate, etc.].
Obviously not everyone will agree. Just wondering how you handle it. What are your priorities for the boundaries of legalism in Christian instruction?
With that in mind, when approaching our catechisms we find lengthy expositions of God’s law. It has been asserted that if even one part of these expositions stray at any point from the actual meaning of scripture then the catechism is there in danger of becoming legalistic to that extent. At face value I believe that we can all agree on that, just as the Divines surely would have. This is plainly why the painstaking effort of providing scripture proofs for every line of instruction was commissioned.
One example given would be WLC 139, which while expositing the 7th Commandment includes instruction against sins such as idleness and gluttony.
Of course the first order of business would be to examine the belabored scripture proofs. But this does not always settle the matter. There are those who readily confirm [regarding the above example] that idleness and gluttony are sinful, yet even in light of the scripture references will still deny that those sins qualify as part of God’s specific commandment against adultery, thus rendering such interpretation as “legalistic" to some extent.
But is this a moot point? Apart from the confessional believer affirming the scriptural warrant of idleness and gluttony within the realm of adultery, does the charge of "legalism" fall flat simply because those are biblically acknowledged sins in their own right and not contrived sins of man's imagination? Or is there more to the matter?
As we have all seen before this issue is raised in more complicated fashion from time to time around other discussions of proactive Christian duty and obligation [i.e. worship, civil magistrate, etc.].
Obviously not everyone will agree. Just wondering how you handle it. What are your priorities for the boundaries of legalism in Christian instruction?