Legalism

[JackofSpades]

What excactly legalism means? I understand the context when its used, but it seems to me that ideas of what it actually mean, are not universal. One christians legalism is another christians obidience.

Paul seems to use it in sense, "rituals are not important and should only be followed if they are based on individuals faith." Jesus seems to think what law of Moses says, can be broken.

Important thing for me seems to be that both of those are referring to judaic laws. But what about other commands in bible, for example moral teachings of Jesus? Can following them be legalism?

 

[Mediaeval]

Legalism can mean adding man's commandments to God's commandments, resulting in a heavy burden. Also, in legalism, a man may think his works or performances determine God's attitude toward him. However, God's love is unconditional, not determined by our level of obedience.

Obeying Christ's commandments in response to God's unconditional love is the opposite of legalism, for His yoke is easy and His burden is light (Matthew 11:28).

 

[RDKirk]

What excactly legalism means? I understand the context when its used, but it seems to me that ideas of what it actually mean, are not universal. One christians legalism is another christians obidience.

Paul seems to use it in sense, "rituals are not important and should only be followed if they are based on individuals faith." Jesus seems to think what law of Moses says, can be broken.

As Paul describes it, legalism is the belief that by adhering to a certain procedure, a man can obligate God to save him. But Paul says that, in fact, salvation is a gift of God--specifically not an obligation of God-- to those who have faith to accept it.

Jesus says that something other than perfect execution of procedure is required for salvation, and then grants salvation to people who have nothing more than faith. Paul is more precise because Paul had to debate the issue...Jesus never entertained debate

Important thing for me seems to be that both of those are referring to judaic laws. But what about other commands in bible, for example moral teachings of Jesus? Can following them be legalism?

Jesus commands are not fixed in ink on paper. Jesus' commands are dynamic and continuous, but are always of His character of love and toward the pursuit of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Thus, it is erroneous (or, rather, immature) to ever ask, "Is X a sin?" Asking that question is merely an appeal to law. The correct question is: "Is X edifying? Is X beneficial?" making that judgment with a mind transformed to conform with the mind of Christ.

 

[aiki]

What excactly legalism means? I understand the context when its used, but it seems to me that ideas of what it actually mean, are not universal. One christians legalism is another christians obidience.

Paul seems to use it in sense, "rituals are not important and should only be followed if they are based on individuals faith." Jesus seems to think what law of Moses says, can be broken.

Important thing for me seems to be that both of those are referring to judaic laws. But what about other commands in bible, for example moral teachings of Jesus? Can following them be legalism?

Legalism is elevating the letter of the law over the spirit of it. Legalism puts law and obedience before love and grace; it separates love from obedience to the law in contradiction to Scripture (Jn. 14:15). Legalism makes performance the means of one's acceptance with God rather than faith in Christ as Saviour and Lord.

Paul the apostle wrote,

Romans 8:3-4
3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,
4that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

and,

Romans 7:10-13
10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.
12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.

and,

Galatians 3:24-25
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

and,

Galatians 5:4
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

and,

Romans 3:20
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


Selah.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What excactly legalism means? I understand the context when its used, but it seems to me that ideas of what it actually mean, are not universal. One christians legalism is another christians obidience.

Paul seems to use it in sense, "rituals are not important and should only be followed if they are based on individuals faith." Jesus seems to think what law of Moses says, can be broken.

Important thing for me seems to be that both of those are referring to judaic laws. But what about other commands in bible, for example moral teachings of Jesus? Can following them be legalism?

In the most basic sense Legalism is the belief that the legis--the Law--has salvific power. That by adherence to God's commandments, personal obedience and effort, we can be justified--rendered as just or righteous before God--and thus be "worthy" of salvation.

Legalism sometimes can spill over into what I would say is more properly called Moralism. Moralism, at least as I would define it, is the act of adding to God's commandments with new and extraneous commandments. Things we have deemed "moral" without any valid cause. Moralism would include such things as "Don't smoke", "Don't drink alcohol", "Don't dance", "Women can't wear pants", "Men must be clean shaven". Etc. Various "morality codes" that aren't taken from what God has actually commanded, but which we've come up with in order to try and self-justify ourselves and make us think that we are living holy, righteous lives through our own strength and effort.

Moralism and Legalism have a tendency to make their bed together. As Moralism is given birth out from the realization that one's personal efforts to obey God's Law is faulty, and thus the need of man to self-justify himself gives rise to the invention of new laws and commandments that he can keep for himself in order to feel as though he has been faithful and obedient to God's laws. When, in fact, he has only made up his own laws and thus kept what is easy for him to keep.

This is the Opinio Legis, the "Opinion of the Law". It's the deep-seated error in all of us that we become convinced that we can be holy and righteous if we just try hard enough. And it leads us to the false belief that we even are holy and righteous when we are not.

Because none of us are holy. None of us are righteous. The Law of God is a force that condemns us in our sin, as we behold the truly just, the truly holy, the truly righteous Lord and reflecting on ourselves seeing that we are not. In response man either despairs or holes himself up in pride. Pride leads to more Legalism and Moralism; despair to moral laxity.

But the Law also, when preached rightly and in conjunction with the Gospel leads to repentance, and the hearing of the Gospel to faith. For the hearing of the Gospel is the grace and love of God for sinners in and through Jesus Christ, that by His death on the cross all our sins are truly and actually forgiven, and by His resurrection there is life and immortality in the world to come. That this Gospel produced faith and hope and trust in God, and thus man does not need to despair in his sins, but can walk in faith, in the hope given us by God in His kindness in Jesus Christ.

Legalism and Moralism always kills faith. Either with despair or pride, because it preaches a justification from the Law that no sinner can attain; and the only answer is to rightly preach the Word. To preach the Law rightly, and to preach the Gospel boldly.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

Legalism can be a slippery term, because it’s often used as an accusation against people that we disagree with.

As noted above, the theological meaning would be saying that our acceptance by God is based on obeying the rules. At least in Protestant exegesis, our acceptance is based simply on God’s unmerited grace, which we receive in faith, or in Jesus’ terms, being followers of Jesus.

But at this point things get slippery. While Jesus and Paul say that God accepts us even when we don’t deserve it, both also say that we will be accountable for what we do (and don’t do). Jesus says this in his many teachings about judgement, and Paul in passages involving discipline. Some interpreters summarize this as “justified by faith and judged by works.”

This tension leaves plenty of room for disagreement, with people who place more emphasis on accountability for our actions being accused of legalism, and people who place more emphasis on faith being accused of antinomianism (rejection of all rules).

As noted above, legalism is also often used for people who come up with unnecessary rules. But this again is slippery. What is unnecessary? In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus emphasizes intent. But he gives examples of specific things that are wrong. When teaching ethics, and mentoring or disciplining people, it’s often not enough just to say “love your neighbor.” Most churches try to provide more specific guidance. Not all of that guidance will be directly from Scripture, since Scripture provides little direct help on dating practice, cloning, or discipline in public schools, though the principles can certainly be applied.

There are bound to be differing views on that specific guidance, with those having stricter views being accused of legalism and those having looser views being accused of being antinomian. You’ll see this kinds of accusations regularly in debates on sexual ethics.

I’m not trying to deny the reality of legalism. It certainly exists, and it causes big problems. But exactly what is and isn’t legalism is a matter often debated in these groups.

 

[JackofSpades]

Thus, it is erroneous (or, rather, immature) to ever ask, "Is X a sin?" Asking that question is merely an appeal to law. The correct question is: "Is X edifying? Is X beneficial?" making that judgment with a mind transformed to conform with the mind of Christ.

That sounds good in theory, but I think in social religion, such as christianity, that process of decisionmaking is never up to individual alone, those decisions are made more as community than as individuals. If person is lucky, he happens to come to same conclusion than his community generally and then this actually works in practise.

 

[JackofSpades]

Quote- function is acting up, so I gotta do this old school way:

hedrick:
"There are bound to be differing views on that specific guidance, with those having stricter views being accused of legalism and those having looser views being accused of being antinomian."
---

At some point in my past, I was fascinated by antinomianism, I think it's very logical construction on understanding grace. I'm aware it ignores parts of the Bible, but I personally feel adding all those parts in theology makes the whole puzzle rather contradictory.

I have came across two different versions of definition of antinomianism:

1) We are free to sin as much as we please because it doesn't matter at all

2) How we live morally has no spiritual significance on how we are doing with god, but it matters in our earthly lives.

If judging from pragmatic point of view, version 1 is obviously trouble waiting to happen but I think that second version makes alot of general sense.

 

[RDKirk]

That sounds good in theory, but I think in social religion, such as christianity, that process of decisionmaking is never up to individual alone, those decisions are made more as community than as individuals. If person is lucky, he happens to come to same conclusion than his community generally and then this actually works in practise.

If it happens "generally" and if it "actually works in practice" then it must not be "lucky."

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. -- Romans 12

Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. -- 1 Corinthians 10

 

[JackofSpades]

RDKirk
If it happens "generally" and if it "actually works in practice" then it must not be "lucky."
------


I don't understand at all what you're trying to say.

 

[hedrick]

I have came across two different versions of definition of antinomianism:

1) We are free to sin as much as we please because it doesn't matter at all

2) How we live morally has no spiritual significance on how we are doing with god, but it matters in our earthly lives.

If judging from pragmatic point of view, version 1 is obviously trouble waiting to happen but I think that second version makes alot of general sense.

I still think that antinomianism is primarily used as an accusation against people you disagree with. I’m not aware of anyone who actually calls themselves antinomian.

However I’m aware of two positions that might merit that name. The first is your (2). It says that rules have no significance in our status before God. We are justified entirely by faith, and works are not of salvific significance. Note that this position does not say that works don’t matter. The Bible is quite clear that they do. It is based on the understanding that changing people’s hearts is the best way to change their behavior. Thus God concentrates on faith and motivation, but expects behavior to follow it.

In most versions, while behavior isn’t of salvific significance, if someone shows no sign that their faith has impacted their lives, we can reasonably ask whether their faith is real. However the “free grace” position seems to me not even to go that far, and there are more mainstream Protestants that might agree.

That’s a theological version of antinomianism. The other position that might merit that title is ethical. It agrees that behavior matters, but maintains that according to Jesus teaching, behavior isn’t governed by law, but entirely by intent. This position was common in the mid-20th Cent. It was referred to as “situation ethics.” It said that you go into a situation and pick the most loving action, operating just from an analysis of the situation, not any rules.

You can see some basis for this in Jesus’ teaching, particularly the Sermon on the Mount, but it has two problems: (1) it ignores our propensity to focus on short-run considerations like pleasure, and not deal with things that matter in the long run, e.g. fidelity to promises (2) it ignores our ability to rationalize what our emotions are pushing us to do. Rules and ethical guidelines allow us to consider types of situation in advance, looking at long-term considerations, and providing limits that can protect us against emotional appeal. For that reason you don’t hear about situational ethics much these days, except as an accusation to throw against people you disagree with.

 

[JackofSpades]

This ethical version is interesting, I haven't heard about it before. That sounds like dogmatized/rationalised version of having situational awareness.

I think ethics are topic where extreme situations and everyday-ethics need different philoshophies. In extreme situations, acts are more important (like saving someones life in emergency situation), but in general everyday existence, often intent is far more important than actual actions. If someones good will is obvious, it isn't so hugely important how they are expressing it.

So, to summarize that as slogan, I would come up with something like "In emergency, be under the law, in daily life, walk in spirit".

Altho I personally hate rationalizing consept of spirit like that, but in this case it seems fitting

 

[RDKirk]

RDKirk
If it happens "generally" and if it "actually works in practice" then it must not be "lucky."
------


I don't understand at all what you're trying to say.

Luck, by definition, is rare--not "general" or what actually works in practice.

If it's "general" and "actually works in practice," it's not luck, it's the way the Body of Christ is supposed to work.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's more common to find antinomian language even without antinomian practice.

In the church circles I grew up in a common rhetorical trope was, "We are under grace, not law." A treatment as though Law and Gospel were antithetical; a position I consider odd now, it would be like describing a doctor's diagnosis as antithetical to the cure or treatment.

I would certainly consider such language to be "antinomian", even though the practice was hardly antinomian; and in many instances was, in fact, staunchly legalistic and moralistic. Something of an irony I suppose.

In the strictest sense I suppose Antinomianism, with a capital 'A', probably should be reserved for that sort of theology that really does advocate total moral laxity, and even out-and-out licentiousness.

There have been a number of movements and sects that maintained doctrines that have been called "Adamite". The original Adamites were a 4th century sect in North Africa that said they had become so free from sin that they were as Adam was before the fall, and thus were under no moral compunction and could live and do anything they so pleased, no matter how repugnant, and it was not counted as sin against them.

In the Middle Ages the Brethren of the Free Spirit taught similarly, and another sect appeared in Britain in the 17th century with similar ideas. Other groups include some of the most radical of the Taborites (a radical, militant, apocalyptic sect of the Hussites). In recent times an American cult, known variously as The Children of God and The Family, have been in existence; known for their practice of "flirty fishing" in which young female members of the cult use sex to seduce men and bring in new converts through religious prostitution, and other such things.

It would probably be correct to say that these groups were, indeed, Antinomian in practice, rather than merely having an antinomian-like rhetoric.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JackofSpades]

Hardcore antinomianism seems indeed to be limited to small sects.

I think Bible has alot more fuel for legalism than antinomianism, this is evident when observing how new christians change when they start to actively read the Bible. Most, if not all, will go through period of intense legalism (or something like that).

 

[RDKirk]

Legalism is like a soldier thinking he will win the war by having his boots shined perfectly. There is a time to for boots to shine, and there is a time to get them muddy.

 

[rick357]

Legalism is like a soldier thinking he will win the war by having his boots shined perfectly. There is a time to for boots to shine, and there is a time to get them muddy.

The idea is to be what God expects...obediance is not in question as only a false faith says obediance is not important...yet the legalist has set to be obediant by his own might bringing him to the law of sin and death...while those of true faith are trusting Christ in them and his life in them to live through them bringing them to the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus....
Its not what is right and wrong that has changed but the power source of how to achieve that standered is in question...

*[[2Co 3:3-18]] RNKJV*
%v 3% Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of the Messiah ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living Elohim; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
%v 4% And such trust have we through the Messiah toward יהוה:
%v 5% Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of יהוה;
%v 6% Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
%v 7% But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
%v 8% How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
%v 9% For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
%v 10% For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
%v 11% For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
%v 12% Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
%v 13% And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
%v 14% But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in the Messiah.
%v 15% But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
%v 16% Nevertheless when it shall turn to יהוה, the vail shall be taken away.
%v 17% Now יהוה is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of יהוה is, there is liberty.
%v 18% But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of יהוה, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of יהוה.

 

[bling]

There may be a lot more subjectivity to Christianity than we like to consider.

God is judging the hearts of people and not their actions, although their actions usually are the reactions to the heart conditions.

Legalist follow the written rules which make it easy to control the multitude, it takes close contact and time to work with the individual when it comes to determining motive. If the motive was pure than it was right.

Legalism does not take the individual into consideration, while God is the Father of that individual and we should treat the individual as a child of God.

 

[RDKirk]

There may be a lot more subjectivity to Christianity than we like to consider.

God is judging the hearts of people and not their actions, although their actions usually are the reactions to the heart conditions.


Legalist follow the written rules which make it easy to control the multitude, it takes close contact and time to work with the individual when it comes to determining motive. If the motive was pure than it was right.

Legalism does not take the individual into consideration, while God is the Father of that individual and we should treat the individual as a child of God.

That's what I'm talking about in post #9.

Moral legalism (or legal moralism) prescribes a fixed written code: You are to perform righteous actions and to avoid unrighteous actions. Here is the list of righteous actions; here is the list of unrighteous actions.

But because such fixed written lists can never be complete for all situations, moral legalism required constant additions and modifications to the lists:

The list says "do not work on the Sabbath." So now clarifications are needed: Is gathering sticks "work?" How about travel? If travel is "work," then can we travel to the synagogue? If we can travel to the synagogue then how much travel, is "work?" How about building a fire? If building a fire is "work," how about flipping on a light switch?

We see in Matthew 25 that Jesus does not levy more upon us than we are able to handle. The fixed written code was suitable for the Bronze Age Israelites because as Jesus said, "Their hearts were hard."

But we are presented with a new covenant in which the law exists within us, not in written lists of "do" and "don't."

How is this law written within us?

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will. -- Romans 12

We must start with the mind of Christ, that is not in conformance with the world--which is slave to the flesh, to our own personal desires.

What will be the character of God's good, pleasing, and perfect will? It will be that which is edifying and beneficial, not just to ourselves but to the Body of Christ:

All things are lawful for me [eschewing the written code], but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify. Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wellbeing [the character of God's will for our actions]. -- 1 Corinthians 10

 

[Viren]

In legalism you depend on yourself to save yourself.

With faith you depend on Christ to save.

So with faith the focus is on Christ while in legalism the focus is on yourself.