Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
William

What is Legalism?

Recommended Posts

Staff

by John Hendryx

 

Legalism could be defined as any attempt to rely on self-effort to either 1) attain or 2) maintain our justification before God. In Paul's Epistle to the Galatians he warned them sternly about such false understandings of the gospel when he asked the offenders: "After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" (Gal.3:3). Legalism always seems to have one thing in common: it's theology denies that Christ is sufficient for salvation. That some additional element of self-effort, merit or faithfulness on our part is necessary. As an example, those who erroneously teach that a Christian can lose his or her salvation are, in essence, denying the sufficiency of Christ to save to the utmost. They believe their effort has some merit in contributing toward the price of their redemption. They also believe certain sins to be greater than Christ's grace. But Christ's righteousness which he counts toward us is not only efficient for our salvation, but sufficient. His once for all sacrifice put away sin for all time in those He has united to Himself (Heb 10:10). His salvation includes not only saving us at the beginning but preserving us to the end, sealing us in His perfect righteousness and whose blood "reminds the covenant God" not to treat us as our sins justly deserve. Any attempt to add our covenant faithfulness as part of the price of redemption after regeneration and justification is an "attempt to attain our goal by human effort" and thus a complete misapprehension of the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We must, therefore, reject any and all attempts to maintain a judicial standing before God by any act on our part. Salvation is of the Lord.

 

In light of this, some may ask, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?" The Apostle Paul answers:

 

By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. (Rom 6:1-8)

 

The Apostle John also likewise declares that

 

"No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God." (1 John 3:9).

 

"And his commandments are not burdensome. For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world" (1 John 5:4).

 

Notice that whether it is legalism or grace, obedience is required, but the motive we have for obeying makes all the difference. Our new life is a supernatural one ... and if we had to rely on self (even partly) to attain salvation then none of us would ever stand a chance of saving ourselves or persevering to the end. But God in his mercy ensures us that those united to Christ will indeed be preserved (and will persevere to the end). In other words, biblically speaking, true Christians obey and persevere because we are saved, but not in order to be saved ... for no one can maintain their just standing before God but Christ alone .... otherwise none of us would have hope.

 

Bill Baldwin has put together a brief definition of legalism which I think is helpful:

 

1. Using the Mosaic covenant as though it is the covenant between you and God.

 

2. Attempting to be justified by one's own works.

 

3. Attempting to be sanctified by one's own works

 

4. Suggesting that our worth or worthlessness, our self-esteem and self-satisfaction or lack thereof, rest on our own works.

 

5. Any attempt to please God judicially, or any supposition that our sin as believers has resulted in his judicial displeasure. [My note: any post-salvation attempt to maintain our judicial standing before God through good works, covenant faithfulness, merit etc..]

 

6. Teaching that we conform ourselves to our judicial standing in Christ (righteous and perfect) by our own works.

 

7. Attempting to attain godliness by a systematic change of behavior

 

8. Obedience that does not spring from a renewed heart

 

a. As of an unbeliever who has no renewed heart

 

b. As of a believer who has a renewed heart but whose righteous behavior does not spring therefrom.

 

9. Any supposition that externally righteous acts have any value on their own, even as conduct that prepares the way for either

 

a. A renewed heart (preparationism as regards justification),

 

b. The softening or further renewing of an already renewed heart (preparationism as regards sanctification. Note Romans 12:2-Transformation occurs through the renewing of the mind), or

 

c. Any other work of the Spirit.

 

10 . Suggesting that faith is irrelevant in the accomplishment of some (or all) good works.

 

11. Trying to be justified by works that are created and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

12. Attempting to gain assurance of salvation solely or primarily on the basis of the sign of outward works

 

A Christian is not only one who has repented of his immorality, but, even more importantly, has repented of his morality. The more self-righteous one is, the worse it is for him. Our own merits are of no value for salvation, but will damn us. Whoever relies on his own goodness for salvation will suffer complete ruin.

 

One last thing I would like to point out that I think is helpful. Predestination destroys legalism. If the whole of salvation, in all its parts, is understood to be by Christ alone, it leaves no room for boasting or trusting in ourselves, even partly. It strips us bare and forces us to abandon all hope in self-effort or rules to attain a right standing before God ... It shatters our self-complacency and causes us to renounce our self-righteousness. It makes us cover our lips and utter God is God and I am not (Rom 9:15, 16). That is why the Scripture declares: "It is because of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” (1 Cor 1:30-31)

 

This is not to say that predestinarians cannot be legalistic. Human beings always find a way, Reformed people included. It means to say, rather, that if UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY the doctrine of salvation by Grace ALONE in Christ ALONE will have the real effect of stripping us of legalism etc. Again only God's grace can do so. The true effect of biblical predestination will have on someone who beholds the majesty of God and is struck down by the fact that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy is to say, I have no hope in myself, and justly deserve God's wrath save for the mercy of Christ alone, who gives me everything I need for salvation, including a new heart to believe (Deut 29:4, 30:6; John 6:63).

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Individualistic Romance Leads to Legalism

      My generation, which came of age in the 1980s and 1990s, was inducted into the idolatry of love through romantic movies and love songs. The film The Princess Bride captured the vibe. It’s a sarcastic fairy tale, but it’s a fairy tale. Picture two blond and beautiful individuals, detached from all family and meaningful relations, alone in the world, beset by misfortune, yet trading ironic quips and saving themselves by the power of “true love.” Or maybe you saw the teen-bop romance movie Say Anything. If so, you remember the magical moment when the lead character holds a boom box above his head, arms outstretched, outside the second-story bedroom of the girl he loves—a Gen-X version of a damsel in distress needing rescue by her knight. She’s restless in her room, imprisoned by an angry father. The music reverberates upward as the singer proclaims himself “complete in your eyes” in a way he could not be through “a thousand churches” and “fruitless searches.” The hero’s message couldn’t be clearer: Our salvation isn’t in the church. It’s in each other. We “complete” each other. Though these pop-culture references are dated, you can pick your generation—millennial, Xers, boomers, all the way back to the generation of The Scarlet Letter and before that—and each has its version of the same story. It’s the story of individualism and individualist conceptions of love. Individualism and Love Love stories have existed for millennia. Yet, in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, a new conception of romantic love began to arise amid a flurry of poetry and novels. Romanticism offered a vision of love decidedly set against the structures, hierarchies, and traditions of the past. According to this view, romantic love involves not just sexual attraction. It involves finding someone who “completes me” (Giddens, 44–45). It starts with looking inside myself: “Never mind father’s expectations, mother’s list of duties, or the vicar’s sermons. Who am I, and what do I need? How do I feel about this other person? Does she understand me? Will she help me become everything I’m supposed to be?” Self-discovery then gives way to self-realization and expression: “This is who I am, father. I will pursue her. On the American side of the Atlantic, one might think of The Scarlet Letter, where love defies the laws of religion. Similarly, Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby tries to divorce himself from the past, rewrite who he is, and enjoy love with an upper-class married woman. His obsessive love battles not against religion but against the laws of old money and class. So it was in book after book on the British side of the pond, like Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights or the salacious work of D. H. Lawrence. The original Romantics were intentionally reacting against the cold rationalism of the Enlightenment. They wanted to be guided by love rather than structure, internal desire rather than external constraint, spontaneous impulse rather than rational deduction, beauty and freedom rather than efficiency and order. But they remained Enlightenment heirs. They were just as individualistic as those whom they reacted against. In the landscape of the novels, what matters isn’t who people are in relation to their families or trades or religion. These age-old structures don’t define them. What matters is who they are in themselves—what they want, what they feel. Every relationship is a contract that can be ripped up. What’s nonnegotiable is whatever my individual heart tells me is true. Yet what is intentional in these older novels becomes unintentional and assumed in the popular films of my adolescence. Movie after movie presents handsome teenagers throwing off the oppressive hand of parents and teachers who “just don’t get it.” This is the story of The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and Dead Poets Society and Dirty Dancing and on and on. Each offers a vision of love that looks brave and attractive in its defiance. It’s awake simultaneously to the inner self and also to the mystical glory of love, like a soul in harmony with the cosmos. It courageously casts off all encumbrances in pursuit of its prize, while maintaining an impenetrable moral justification: “I act in the name of love.” Who would dare go against that? Legalistic and Isolated Love These days, our world seems to take for granted this view of love—a love rooted in self-discovery and self-expression that justifies breaking every rule. Over dinner, a friend who is my age said to me and my wife, “If two people really love each other, they should be able to be happy. We shouldn’t stop them.” I knew any direct challenge to her claim would be futile. The claim depended on a set of moral intuitions developed in culture through decades and even centuries of morality tales. These intuitions were the unquestioned “of course” that needs no argument. Notice how romantic love in this tradition becomes the perfect vehicle for sinful human beings to get everything they want: self-absorption and companionship; self-expression and moral approval; self-rule and the blessing of heaven; pleasure and an easy conscience. Ironically, the individualist’s love story becomes legalistic. Salvation belongs to those who follow the demands of romantic love. Opponents to anything called love are judged and vanquished. If you’re a baker who refuses to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, for instance, you might find yourself in court. If you’re a high-school student who says that sex, love, and marital commitment belong together, you’ll find yourself excommunicated from the circle of cool kids. Yet Romanticism’s priests will refuse to call it moralism. They call it pleasure and happiness. Their story culminates in a bed, after all, two lovers embracing one another, having cast off the world, enjoying all the delights of togetherness, staring into one another’s eyes. The camera need not turn to parents or to children, as it never does in The Princess Bride. The couple is the center of the universe. It’s Wesley and Princess Buttercup happily ever after, like in most romance movies. Could you ask for anything more? Generative and Fruitful Love Well, yes, in fact. The biblical teaching on love also includes a bed. But it places that bed in a garden, where the couple’s union ultimately yields a flourishing world of rose bushes and apple orchards and a mess of children’s shoes by the front door and swing-sets and skyscrapers. Biblical love creates a far, far bigger universe. It’s not stagnant like a bed all by itself. It has forward motion and a story to follow. It’s generative. It’s fruitful. Not only that, but the biblical story of love also makes more room for friendships. No one human being can meet all of another person’s emotional, intellectual, and spiritual needs. C. S. Lewis wisely remarked: “In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets.” I often remind young married couples of this, particularly when they are jealous for one another’s time. Wives should encourage their husbands to find good male friendship, and husbands should encourage their wives to form healthy female friendships. We’re happier and less demanding of our spouses when we don’t ask them to play God for us. Sure enough, every part of the body needs every other part, Paul says about the church (1 Cor. 12). And how many parts does a body have? To truly experience love, we need far more than what a romantic partner can give us. Related: 20 Quotes on How Your Church Should Exhibit Loving Authority (Matt Smethurst) View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Why legalism destroys churches and kills Christians

      What if your church’s elders passed down a fiat that members could not take more than 1,999 steps on the Lord’s Day without facing church discipline? One more step would be too closely akin to taking a long trip and that is a no-no on the day God set aside for worship.   What if they forbid you to carry your Bibles to church because such heavy lifting would too closely resemble work? Anything heavier than a dried fig is strictly taboo on this day, they say.   Or, what if they added a clause in the constitution and bylaws that members must not leave a radish in salt because that vegetable might become a pickle and pickle-making is work, which is, of course, forbidden on this day.   And, they added sub-paragraphs to the constitution that prescribed disciplinary action for those found guilty of other activities on the Lord’s Day such as carrying a pen (lest you be tempted to write with it), carrying a needle (lest you be tempted to sew with it), helping those who are sick but with non life-threatening maladies (it can wait till Monday), looking in the mirror, spitting, removing dirt from clothes. You get the picture.   [h=3]Real-life legalism[/h] Such boorish legalism would make both a congregation and its elders miserable and would likely lead to an elder election. Yet, these were merely a few among the dozens of Sabbath laws added to the Torah by the Pharisees who lived in the Roman Empire during New Testament times. Ironically, the Pharisees and their scribes were the theological giants of the day, yet in Mark 2:25-26 and in other passages in the four Gospels, Jesus asks them, “Have you not read?” In other words, don’t you understand the Scriptures? Jesus tweaks the Pharisees in John 5:39 with similar words, telling them, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me.”   In the Mark passage, the Pharisees are watching Jesus—who is a rabbi—to see if he breaks their rabbinic laws related to the Sabbath. In the final verses of Mark 2, they charge Jesus with spiritual criminality because his disciples pick the heads of grain while walking through a field and eat the kernels to satiate their hunger. Jesus points out that David and his band of brothers ate the showbread in the tabernacle with divine impunity while on the run from Saul (1 Sam. 21:1-6). At the outset of Mark 3, Jesus heals a man with a lame hand in direct violation of the Sabbath laws of the Pharisees.   Of course, the Pharisees are infamous for encrusting the moral law of God with hundreds of their own manmade laws and traditions. And we get the idea from the New Testament that trying to obey the laws as a means of salvation made them a miserable people.    Small wonder.   [h=3]Alive and well today[/h] While few of us today seek to follow the Pharisaical model, this level of misery is alive and well among those who misunderstand the complementarity of law and gospel and seek to earn favor with God through both keeping the law and misappropriating it to extrapolate a set of personal convictions—often related to modes of dress, music, movies, etc.—that become a system of expected ethical norms to which they hold both themselves an other Christians. As Spurgeon once said of the legalist, “His slogan is, ‘You cannot be spiritual unless you are uncomfortable.’”    Indeed.    The law of God as a ground for salvation, as a means of accruing merit, leaves the worker exhausted, miserable—and lost. The law as a guide to salvation is a terrible taskmaster.   For this reason, discussions of law and gospel remain vital and deeply practical. After all, in 1 Timothy 1:8, Paul wrote, “The law is good if one uses it lawfully.” But how can Paul say the law is good? Elsewhere, in Romans 7:11, Paul says sin came alive through the law and killed him. In Galatians 3, Paul says the Law once held us captive and he calls it a “guardian.” If the law kills, holds us captive and leads the Pharisees to lead such shriveled up lives of pure misery, then how is it good?   [h=3]Rightly divided[/h] I think Paul gets at it earlier in Romans 7:7, “Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have know what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’” The law exposes our sin. The law shows us the holy, spotless character of God. The law produces despair in us—not a despair the leads us to forego attempting to merit any favor with God and drives us to the only place it can be found—in union with Jesus Christ, in his person and work.   Rightly appropriated, the moral law of God unmasks our self-righteousness and exposes us for who we really are: sinners devoid of the righteousness necessary to salvation, sinners hurtling headlong toward a just destruction at the hands of a holy God, sinners in desperate need of a mediator before God.   It shows us that we have indeed sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It points up our desperate need for the gospel. As the Puritans so well put it, the law breaks sinners, the gospel heals them. Calvin saw three good functions for the law: it serves as a mirror, clearly showing our sin, it reveals the will of God (as a guide to sanctification), and it works to restrain evil—protecting God’s people from the machinations of unbelievers.   The law left the Pharisees (and their disciples) miserable because they viewed it as a vehicle to glory, a means of salvation. They used it unlawfully and the result was a shrunken, joyless, bitter existence. This is the result when we misinterpret Scripture and replace the grace of God with legalism. But rightly understood, the law of God is good, unmasking our self-righteousness and exposing our depravity. It sends us running for cover in the righteousness of Christ won at Calvary through his selfless love. It liberates us to rest from our labors at keeping the law, and leads us to green pastures of deep and overflowing joy in Christ alone.   “Come to me all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30). The post Why legalism destroys churches and kills Christians appeared first on Southern Equip.       More...

      in General Faith

    • How would you define "Legalism"?

      Legalism is a word that gets thrown around a bit in theological discussions and debates and when on the topic of discipleship. I thought I would toss this out there for discussion among the board: what is your definition of legalism? How did you reach this conclusion? What scriptural passages supports the conclusion? Can you provide an example of legalism you've seen? Conversely, can you give an example of something labeled legalism that really wasn't?   Thanks for sharing. :)

      in Discipleship

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.