What if there is no attempt to reduce God`s will to a “Codeto a List of Commandments”? Take it as is! What if you didn`t try to focus on the commandments instead of God`s will? (How could you even do that?) What if you simply obeyed the commandments from the bottom of your heart, as you must do to obey God`s will? “. But you have obeyed from the bottom of your heart this form of doctrine that has been freed to you. Since you have been freed from sin, you have become servants of righteousness” (Romans 6:17–18). Would that make him a legalist? If so, what`s wrong with that? That`s who I am: call me a “legalist.” The person who disobeys the law of Christ is condemned by the Word of God (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). This second type of legalism can be exemplified by the Pharisees who confronted Jesus for healing on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-14). They only cared about the letter of the law and avoided anything that might look like work for them. These teachers lacked the spirit of the law, which was directed against ordinary work, which is not necessary to sustain life, and not against efforts to heal the sick. To understand the second type of legalism, we must remember that the New Testament distinguishes between the letter of the law (its external form) and the spirit of the law. The second form of legalism separates the letter of the law from the spirit of the law. He obeys the letter but hurts the spirit. There is only one subtle difference between this form of legalism and the one mentioned above.
Legalism in the Western sense is the ethical attitude that views moral behavior as a matter of conformity. [1] It is an approach to the analysis of legal issues characterized by abstract logical thinking that focuses on the applicable legal text, such as a constitution, law or jurisprudence, rather than on the social, economic or political context. Legalism emerged in civil and customary traditions. It emphasizes both natural law and legal positivism. [2] In its narrower versions, legalism can support the idea that the pre-existing corpus of authoritative legal documents already contains a unique predetermined correct answer to each legal problem that arises. Legalism is a very emotional word but charged with religion. But this is a bigger problem than religion itself. Legalism is believing that obeying the do`s and don`ts of the law is justified precisely because, regardless of the understanding of the heart: justice, mercy, forgiveness, fidelity, hope, love.
“If I don`t kill, rape or commit a heinous crime, then I`m good because I respect the law.” Law and order help to maintain society, but they do not cut the mustard for the Kingdom of God (cf. Mt 5:21-30). The kingdom of God is both internal and external. The law is our outward expression or reflection of what the interior should be (Romans 7:21-25; Hebrews 10:1). Legalism misses the broader context, the central purpose, and the fundamental reason or reason why the law was introduced in the first place. Thus, a legalistic person is generally regarded as one who follows the letter of the law but divorces or does not understand and apply the spirit of the law, using the rule of law itself as the supreme authority and often placing ceremonial, traditional or civil law above or equal to the moral law (cf. Mt 23, 23). This was also evident in pre-war Nazi Germany (1933-1939), which justified anti-Semitism and injustice under state law and arbitrarily brought anti-Jewish laws into the judicial system. It systematically restricted the political, civil, legal, and then inevitably moral rights of the Jewish people, ultimately leading to “legal” genocide.
Therefore, legalism takes or makes laws, commandments, rules, and rituals the ultimate goal of justification and goodness, as if keeping the law for the sake of the law were the goal to be attained or attained. This means that not all men, religious and secular, are exempt from being legalistic (cf. Rom 2:13-15). A legalist believes that their good works and obedience to God affect their salvation. Martin Luther sparked the Protestant Reformation in 1517 when he argued that Christians are saved by faith and faith alone. This contradicted the Roman Catholic understanding of salvation, which claims that salvation comes both by faith and by our obedience (or good works). As a Christian, have you ever been accused of legalism? This word is often misused in the Christian subculture. For example, some people might call John a legalist because they consider him narrow-minded. But the term legalism does not refer to narrow-mindedness. In reality, legalism manifests itself in many subtle ways. This implies that legalism makes baptism “essential to salvation,” whereas Jesus emphasized forgiveness of his enemies more than baptism.
Baptism is essential to salvation, no matter what is said about other things. Of course, the necessary conclusion is that the rigid rule of baptism must go to the forgiveness of sins, so that wise young minds who seek freedom of personal choice for their salvation are not bound by this useless rule. Baptism is a commandment in the name of Christ (Mark 16:15, 16; Acts 10:48). One cannot be saved without obeying from the bottom of one`s heart in baptism (Romans 6:17). “Legalism exists when people try to obtain justice in God`s eyes through good works. Legalists believe that they deserve or can earn God`s approval by following the requirements of the law,” said Thomas R. Schreiner. A legalist believes that their good works and obedience to God affect their salvation.
Legalism focuses more on God`s laws than on the relationship with God. He keeps the outer laws without a truly subjugated heart. And legalism adds human rules to divine laws and treats them as divine. Legalism also generally asserts that the judge`s job is to determine the answer to a question of law through an essentially mechanical process. Fundamentally, legalism involves abstracting God`s law from its original context. Some people seem to be busy in the Christian life following rules and regulations, and they see Christianity as a set of do`s and don`ts, cold, deadly moral principles. It is a form of legalism that consists only of keeping God`s law as an end in itself. The boredom and dissatisfaction of wise young minds in the face of the dryness of Christ`s straight and narrow path (Matthew 7:13-14) do not recommend them to the “gray beard of antiquity” and therefore turn to the freedom of any religious expression they like and the concept of “unity in diversity” of Christianity.
This is the reason given by the author for his book. It is a rejection of God`s will, no matter how you look at it. These thoughts do not know God and do not include the “love of God” as revealed in the Bible. If this is the alternative to legalism, I am what they call a “legalist.” He continues: “Therefore, we must try to live our lives according to these commandments. Such behavior is not legalism. Legalism is a slavish observance of the law in the belief that it deserves merit. Many people think that the essence of Christianity is to follow the right rules, even extra-biblical rules. For example, the Bible doesn`t say we can`t play cards or have a glass of wine with dinner.
We cannot make these things the external test of authentic Christianity. This would be a mortal violation of the gospel, because it would replace the true fruits of the Spirit with human tradition. We come dangerously close to blasphemy by distorting Christ in this way. Where God has given freedom, we should never enslave people with man-made rules. We must ensure that we combat this form of legalism. Like the term Trinity, the word legalism is not used in the Bible, but describes principles that are clearly stated in the Bible. At the heart of the debate about legalism versus grace is the understanding of how we are saved and how we can be certain of our heavenly hope. Finally, just because legalism is a bad approach to the Bible doesn`t mean the law itself is wrong, and it should be obvious as Christians that there is no problem following the law (Romans 7:6-7; 13:1, 5-7).
Obviously, “lie not” (Exodus 20:16) is a very good law, especially since “it is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). This is often called the moral law because it is universal, necessary, and objective/eternal. And how else could Paul say that immoral acts “of the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God” if all laws were evil? (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) It is therefore not the law itself that creates legalism. Take, for example, antinomianism, which argues against the law and all forms of norms as if they were evil (moral, ceremonial, civil or otherwise) and claims that we are not bound by any of the laws of the Old Testament, some of which even try to separate the whole of the OT from the NT. In their attempt to free themselves from the law, they make a new law: do not follow the laws. (cf. Galatians 2:18) This is clearly a rebuttal. They made a new law. Legalism or legal formalism usually presents judges as resolving cases by supposedly simply applying pre-existing legislation. They do not appear to be legislating, exercising discretion, balance or policy, and they certainly do not seek to draw on traditional legal texts when deciding new cases. For them, law is an autonomous field of knowledge and technology.
What they follow are the maxims of clarity, determination and coherence of the law. This conception of law and jurisprudence is sometimes called “orthodox lawyer”.