Are Legalists Really Saved?
First we need to define what a legalist actually is, and what a legalist actually does.
So, turn to Paul, in Galatians 3, and note that he defines them as "cursed of God", because they are preaching their gospel, that is anti-cross, and anti-christ-grace. Their message, as Paul states, is "another gospel" that is not related to the Cross, the Blood Atonement, or Salvation or the "GIFT of Righteousness"....
It is definitely necessary to define terms so that everyone can understand what is being discussed and use the terminology in like manner.
Unblessedly, this op does not actually define the term "legalism," uses copy-and-paste eisegesis and is itself an example of legalism so it begs the ironic question, "Is the author saved?" And, of course, none of us here possess the faculties to know another's eternal disposition but we can assume if the author calls upon the name of God's resurrected Son, Jesus the anointed one of God, then yes, s/he is saved.
So the answer to the question asked is, "Yes, a legalists are really saved,"
because........
God saves even legalists!
So let's start with a definition of legalism. There are probably many ways we could define the term. The dictionaries define legalism to mean undue or inordinate adherence to or reliance upon law, or the reliance upon moral or legal law at the expense of person or faith. These are certainly conditions we observe with the Sadducees and Pharisees of Jesus' day and the Judaizers in the early ekklesia. However, for the purposes of this discussion I will suggest that the simplest and most practical way to understand legalists is this:
Legalists are anyone who adds to the word of God things it does not say. Legalists are also those who see only the letter of the commands of God and fail to either understand or apply the
principle under-girding the command.
And example of the latter would be the command not to muzzle the ox when plowing. This Mosaic Law is referenced at least three times in the NT and not one of those occasions has anything to do with oxen or threshing grain. It is the
principle instilled in that law that is being applied in the NT era. This is the practice of NT writers.
In contrast to legalism we have
two other extreme of hypocrisy; those who maintain double standards, holding one standard out to others but not themselves and themselves living by another. The third extreme is that of antinomianism, or absence of law or command or antagonism to law or command. We have an example of hypocrisy in the apostle Peter when he behaved one way with the Jewish converts to Christ and another way with the Gentile converts to Christ, requiring correction from the apostle Paul. So we necessarily understand not only can those who practice hypocrisy be saved but
they can be apostles! A Christian can act legalistically, hypocritical, or antinomian and be saved. These are the very kind of people God saves.
But one cannot persist in such conduct and have the full benefits of his/her salvation manifested in his/her life.
Now, more specifically to the op... The OP begins by reporting Galations 3 defines the term and in that chapter we find Paul calling the Galation-3-defined legalists as "
cursed of God," but an examination of Galatians 3 will show there is no mention of "legalism", no mention of any specific definition, and no mention of "
cursed of God." What Galatians does do is reference the OT law! It references the OT law to say those who
fail to live by the
whole law are cursed. It does NOT say those who live by the law are cursed. The passage is about
justification, not the Law. There is an irony or paradox to the appeal to the OT law because the law informed those to whom it was given that the law itself was insufficient apart from faith. The NT standard, "
The righteous shall live by faith," (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:16; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38) is itself and OT command!
Paul was writing about justification. Those who seek to be
justified by the law are cursed, but it should be understood
everyone is cursed apart from faith in Christ. We are saved by grace through faith in the resurrected Son, not by faith in the law.
However, one cannot read the NT and escape the fact every single one of the NT writers repeatedly appealed to and referenced the OT commands (both Mosaic and extra-Mosaic) to teach the NT era ekklesia. We find former Pharisee Paul stating the law is good (Rom. 7:16), the law is spiritual (Rom. 7:14), and the command is holy and righteous (Rom. 7:12).
The law is good when it is used lawfully (1 Tim. 1:8), but the law was not made for the righteous (1 Tim. 1:9) but for sinners because, among other things, it is by the law that sin is made known (Rom. 7:7).
It simply is NOT a basis for justification or righteousness before God.
Those are found in Christ and Christ alone.
The righteous law is not a basis for righteousness before God! Another paradox! Why is the law not a basis for righteousness?
Because the law testifies to....... Christ! The law itself is incomplete. Good, righteous, and holy, but incomplete. It needs Christ incarnate, dead, resurrected, ascended and enthroned (Rom. 10:4).
And people who add to this are legalists. Blessedly, by God's grace He saves legalists.
Now, as to the use of Titus 3:11 in this op this is what the text actually states,
Titus 3:9-11 NAS
"But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned."
Titus 3:9-11 KJV
"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."
Titus 3:9-11
"But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."
You will not that it is disputations over the law, not the law itself, that indicates a problem. This is again another irony because here we are discussing the law with some smalle degree of disagreement. Does this discussion mean one, both, or any and all respondents heretics? No!
That would be legalistic thinking
.
Another matter of concern is the premise a heretic should be kicked out of the body of Chist for good. If this idea is practiced legalistically it contradicts the truth of reconciliation found in Christ and preached throughout the NT. Understand that even when we are directed to hand someone over to satan it is expressly so that person might be saved!
1 Corinthians 5:1-5
"It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."
So even the practice of "handing over" to satan is intended to be redemptive. Properly understood God's law is restitutional, restorative, and conciliatory, not retributional, vindictive, or vengeful (Rom. 12:9-21).
Lastly, it is worth noting the eisegesis of the OP. The op copies and pastes together disparate parts of scripture in order to make the case for an answer to the question, "
Are legalists really saved?" And it does so by misrepresenting scripture. This is not proper exegesis.
Now,
if we define a "legalist" as someone who relies upon the OT Law of Moses for justification and/or righteousness then the answer to the question, "
Are legalists saved?" is an emphatic, "
No!" But
if a legalist is defined more simply as anyone who adds to the laws, commands, standards, and/or precepts of God then the answer is an equally emphatic, "
Yes!" because it is those very people God saves. God saves sinners and legalism is simply and solely one form of sin we are all hoping and working to avoid.
(my apologies for the length)