Legalism?

General Christian Theology
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14597
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Legalism?

Post by Bootstrap »

I like this description of Luther's definition of legalism, which includes legalistic approaches to laws that are not in the Old Testament. That's what he accused Catholics of.

The problem is not having rules, whether or not they are found in the Old Testament. The problem occurs when we let these rules get in the way of the fundamental truth of the Gospel.
Luther warned over and over again that human beings were prone to legalism. Legalism exists when people attempt to secure righteousness in God’s sight by good works. Legalists believe that they can earn or merit God’s approval by performing the requirements of the law. Luther’s polemic against legalism was grounded in his exegesis of the Pauline letters. He drew a correspondence between the Judaizers of Paul’s day and the Roman Catholics of his. Just as the Judaizers believed that they could gain righteousness in God’s sight by the works of the law, so too the Roman Catholics of Luther’s day were attempting to secure righteousness by observing God’s commandments. According to Luther the legalism of the Judaizers had manifested itself in the theology and behavior of mainstream Roman Catholicism in his day. Many Roman Catholic exegetes insisted that Luther’s exegesis was mistaken. They argued that the works of the law in Paul (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10) referred to the ceremonial law alone, and thus they deflected the parallel between the Judaizers and themselves. Luther struck back by arguing that works of law in Paul referred to whole law, both ceremonial and moral. Paul did not merely criticize the Judaizers because they wanted to impose the ceremonial law on Gentiles. He also attacked them because they compromised the fundamental truth of the gospel. The Judaizers were attempting to secure eternal life by virtue of their own works and goodness instead of trusting solely in the atoning work of Jesus Christ on their behalf. Their focus on good works inevitably led to boasting, for if eternal life is obtained by virtue of one’s good works, then the person who performs the good works deserves praise and honor for accomplishing such a remarkable feat. The true gospel, Luther insisted, is exactly the reverse. All the praise, glory and honor belong to God because he has effected our salvation. We can do nothing to merit or earn salvation. Faith gives glory to God because it receives the gift of salvation which he has provided.

This helps explain Luther’s uncompromising stance on the freedom of the will in his famous book The Bondage of the Will. Fallen human beings, according to Luther, are in bondage to sin. This means that they do not have any ability to do what is good in God’s sight. The idea that unregenerate human beings have the freedom to do what is good is a myth, explains Luther, for all people are slaves to sin (Romans 6). Slavery to sin does not mean that people are forced to sin against their wills. Neither God nor the devil puts a gun to our heads and says, “you must sin!” The slavery to sin which characterizes humanity expresses itself in a willing servitude to sin. When human beings sin, they simply carry out the desires in their hearts. Righteousness cannot be obtained by works of law because all human beings are born into the world as slaves of sin, condemned in Adam. They can never secure righteousness by performing good works, for they do not and cannot carry out the requisite works. As Paul said in Rom. 8:7-8, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (RSV). The idea that human beings can obtain righteousness by works is the highest folly since we are totally dominated by sin and cannot perform the works required for justification.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14597
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Legalism?

Post by Bootstrap »

N.T. Wright has another perspective on legalism, focused largely on unity in the Body of Christ.
Why does Paul insist, in I Corinthians 8-10 and Romans 14, that one must not divide the community over issues of what you eat and which holy days you keep, while also insisting, in several places, including I Corinthians 5 and 6, that there are certain types of behaviour for which there must be zero tolerance? This has been a problem for those who think that the key issue in his theology is ‘keeping rules’ over against ‘trusting God’. But when we line up the matter in a post-NP way, the answer is: because food and holy days are things which threaten to divide the community along ethnic lines, whereas sexual ethics (or their non-observance) would divide the community in terms of what it means to be a renewed-in-Christ human being. Personal holiness matters even more for the Christian than it did for the Jew, because in Christ we have died to sin and come alive into God’s new world; but personal holiness has nothing to do with the ‘works of the law’ by which ethnic Israel was demarcated.
I was not satisfied with the shallow developmental analyses offered by various scholars, according to which Paul was opposed to the law in Galatians and in favour of it in Romans, and so on. I found the clue in Romans 10: 3: Paul’s fellow Jews, he says. ‘were ignorant of God’s righteousness, and were seeking to establish their own, and so did not submit to God’s righteousness’. Their own: not a ‘righteousness’, a status of membership in God’s people, which might be obtained by assiduous and moralistic self-help Torah-keeping, but a covenant status which would be for Jews and Jews only. It would be what I called a ‘national righteousness’. Dunn followed this with his proposal, which I fully endorse, that the ‘works of the Law’, against which Paul warned in both Galatians and Romans, were not any and every legal ‘work’ done out of a desire to earn good marks in some heavenly ledger account, but were the ‘works of Torah’ which marked out Jews over against their pagan neighbours: sabbath, circumcision, and food laws. I have shown in considerable detail that this proposal works exegetically, verse by verse and line by line, through Romans, and I have sketched out the way it works in Galatians.
This makes sense to me. In the original context, of course, it referred to only the Jews. But I think it can apply to ethnic groups of Christians or particular Christian traditions too. But here's the dilemma: how do we defend what Scripture clearly teaches without dividing the Kingdom? There are things I find central to Scripture that some Christians do not believe in or practice. There are things others find central to Scripture that I do not believe in or practice. This is true even for some people who are clearly serious, Bible-believing Christians who want to live out their faith.

If I take one of these practices and tell everyone it is the dividing line between obedient disciples and false Christians, that clearly divides the faith. For things that are very clear in Scripture, such as gay marriage, I think the answer may be different than it is for things that are additional rules and guidelines not found in Scripture. Our obedience must be to Jesus and to New Testament Christianity. For things that are 'ethnic markers', often a particular kind of wineskin that holds the true wine in a given community, I think it is important to focus on the wine rather than the wineskins.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Outsider
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:01 pm
Location: griffin ga
Affiliation: Church of Christ
Contact:

Re: Legalism?

Post by Outsider »

Bootstrap wrote:
Outsider wrote:As I have said, many of the things others have described as "legalism" I am in complete agreement with as being, at the very least, not expedient- if not downright sinful. I just wouldn't use the term. I just don't see it justified except when someone tries to tie a gentile to the whole of the Mosaic law. Any other use is to abuse scripture. And whether it will send you to hell or not is irrelevant.
Since this word never occurs in Scripture, I don't know what the scriptural definition is.
Well, we all use words and phrases that aren't in scripture- and we can use them scripturally in the sense of using them as a short-hand way of referring to ideas expressed in scripture. For example, I mention "Utilitarian Christianity"- which is a shorthand way I use to refer to the idea expressed by the passage in 2nd Timothy 3:

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:

I don't think legalism is the same thing as seriously trying to obey Scripture. I would call that obedience or discipleship.
I would agree. But I've found that most often when people use the term "legalism" it is to weasel-word their way out of obedience/discipleship.
But there is room for different definitions of legalism, and the definition may depend on your theology. I think you are working from a definition that looks a lot like this discussion in Wikipedia.
That is correct. But reflecting, I think legalism could also include being unwilling to forgive the repentant. There also may be other things which might deserve the label I'm overlooking.

Yes, I would agree that one's perspective might depend on your theology, but a great deal of modern theology- as well as notable historical heresies, such as the Cathar movement- is very much dedicated to doing away with the need for obedience/discipleship.
0 x
1 Peter 4:11
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God;

Hebrews 1:14
Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14597
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Legalism?

Post by Bootstrap »

Outsider wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:Since this word never occurs in Scripture, I don't know what the scriptural definition is.
Well, we all use words and phrases that aren't in scripture- and we can use them scripturally in the sense of using them as a short-hand way of referring to ideas expressed in scripture. For example, I mention "Utilitarian Christianity"- which is a shorthand way I use to refer to the idea expressed by the passage in 2nd Timothy 3:

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:
Sure.

My personal preference is to: (1) rely on scriptural terms when they exist, (2) be careful to define terms that I use or invent, as you did above, so people know how I am using them, (3) avoid fighting over whose definition of an extra-biblical concept is the right one because it leads to "wrangling over words" without adding clarity.

Philosophers often refer to different definitions of a word like this using parentheses: Legalism(Luther), Legalism(Wright), Legalism(Outsider), etc. Each of these may clearly define a concept, each may be a useful definition, each might even teach us something useful about how to approach scriptural obedience, but they might not mean the same thing. There's nothing wrong with that, it just takes more careful thinking on our side.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
cmbl
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:07 pm
Affiliation: Pilgrim, NMB
Contact:

Re: Legalism?

Post by cmbl »

Maybe this is a bunny trail at this point, but I think this should be said:
Just as the Judaizers believed that they could gain righteousness in God’s sight by the works of the law, so too the Roman Catholics of Luther’s day were attempting to secure righteousness by observing God’s commandments.
Yikes! Those legalistic Catholics thought that we need to obey God in order to be righteous? Almost as if Jesus said, "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love."

Leaving the sarcasm aside, this the basic Lutheran belief: Everything that God commands, including New Testament commandments, is "Law." Everything that says "believe" is "Gospel." Don't try to do anything commanded in the New Testament (especially the Sermon on the Mount!). That's all just to tell you how much you need "grace". Luther asked rhetorically,
Does it follow from: 'turn ye' that therefore you can turn? Does it follow from "'Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart' (Deut 6.5) that therefore you can love with all your heart?
This is critical: Luther argues that when God says "turn," he doesn't mean "turn." And if you think God means "turn" when he says "turn," you are a "legalist." As an Anabaptist, I think that when God says "turn," he makes it possible to turn. And so God does mean "turn." And so I do actually need to make a choice to turn. So Anabaptists and Catholics are "legalists" by Luther's rubric.

Given the fruit of Luther's doctrine, I don't think we have anything to apologize for.
0 x
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous."
cmbl
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:07 pm
Affiliation: Pilgrim, NMB
Contact:

Re: Legalism?

Post by cmbl »

I guess we could say we are "legalists(Luther)".
0 x
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous."
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14597
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Legalism?

Post by Bootstrap »

cmbl wrote:Leaving the sarcasm aside, this the basic Lutheran belief: Everything that God commands, including New Testament commandments, is "Law." Everything that says "believe" is "Gospel." Don't try to do anything commanded in the New Testament (especially the Sermon on the Mount!). That's all just to tell you how much you need "grace". Luther asked rhetorically,
Does it follow from: 'turn ye' that therefore you can turn? Does it follow from "'Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart' (Deut 6.5) that therefore you can love with all your heart?
This is critical: Luther argues that when God says "turn," he doesn't mean "turn." And if you think God means "turn" when he says "turn," you are a "legalist."
I'm not sure that's true. After all, Luther also said things like this, at least according to Google:
Luther wrote:There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.
I haven't read much Luther for decades, and I mean more than two decades. I remember being confused about exactly what Luther saw as the relationship between grace and works. I would want to carefully read these quotes in context to understand. I agree that some Lutherans seem to approach it that way.
cmbl wrote:As an Anabaptist, I think that when God says "turn," he makes it possible to turn. And so God does mean "turn." And so I do actually need to make a choice to turn.
Absolutely.
cmbl wrote:So Anabaptists and Catholics are "legalists" by Luther's rubric. Given the fruit of Luther's doctrine, I don't think we have anything to apologize for.
Well, Anabaptists had their own problems with the Catholic Church back in the time of Luther.

I agree that we must not ever apologize for stressing the need for obedience and discipleship.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14597
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Legalism?

Post by Bootstrap »

cmbl wrote:I guess we could say we are "legalists(Luther)".
Maybe. I'd just like to be very careful to make sure we accurately define what he meant by the term before saying that. Even Lutherans seem to disagree about what he meant. So far, I don't think I know what "legalists(Luther)" means.

I'm pretty sure I do know what "legalists(some Lutherans)" means, and it's pretty different from "legalists(some other Lutherans)".
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Outsider
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:01 pm
Location: griffin ga
Affiliation: Church of Christ
Contact:

Re: Legalism?

Post by Outsider »

Bootstrap wrote:
cmbl wrote:I guess we could say we are "legalists(Luther)".
Maybe. I'd just like to be very careful to make sure we accurately define what he meant by the term before saying that. Even Lutherans seem to disagree about what he meant. So far, I don't think I know what "legalists(Luther)" means.

I'm pretty sure I do know what "legalists(some Lutherans)" means, and it's pretty different from "legalists(some other Lutherans)".
:up: :clap: :up:

I have to admit I couldn't really make head or tails of Luther's logic in the posted piece. I do know that some of his critiques of the Catholic church were based in the need for obedience/discipleship- i.e. the condemnation of "indulgences" which the Borgia pope had been selling to raise money, so I take the essay with a grain of salt.
0 x
1 Peter 4:11
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God;

Hebrews 1:14
Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?
Fidelio
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:57 pm
Location: Near Detroit MI
Affiliation: ACCA Friend

Re: Legalism?

Post by Fidelio »

cmbl wrote:Leaving the sarcasm aside, this the basic Lutheran belief: Everything that God commands, including New Testament commandments, is "Law." Everything that says "believe" is "Gospel." Don't try to do anything commanded in the New Testament (especially the Sermon on the Mount!). That's all just to tell you how much you need "grace".
Well it does seem a bit of a caricature but I am afraid that is the impression one gets from Lutheranism. This is one reason I left Lutheranism behind. I had asked a Lutheran pastor why people in Reformed churches lived so much better lives (modest dress, etc.). He answered that Lutherans are about getting people into the next world; Reformed are about making this world a better place. Huh? How do you get them into the next world if you ignore sanctification as an active effort on the peoples' part?

Hey, same pastor once insisted there were two virgin births, one in Isaiah's day and one with Jesus. Okay, I learned quickly that the best place to learn about the Bible is to read the Bible, not to rely on what others say.
0 x
Convert to Anabaptist truth early 2019; now associated (friend) with the Apostolic Christian Church of America.
Post Reply