What is Legalism - Really?

 

So often we hear the terms “works righteousness” or “works” used to describe something that is perceived by some to be legalistic (i.e., basing salvation on human effort, good deeds, keeping the law, or following man’s traditions). Though sadly, legalism certainly exists in the Church, as it always has and always will until Christ returns, there is an increasing number of evangelicals who are misusing and misapplying this word.

 For example, some denominations label other denominations "legalistic" or “liberal” simply because they hold different views on issues not related to salvation or “essential” doctrines. In saying this, I am not at all implying that doctrines and practices other than these are not important. In fact, I have some strong convictions in some of these “secondary” areas. However, I am not willing to divide or separate over these matters. I love my brothers and sisters too much, and I want to see them united, which is especially critical in the times we are living (i.e., a degenerate age in which evil pervades almost every sector of society and persecution is on the rise). We have enough division already within the (true) church (i.e., non-apostate churches), which is weakening us and preventing us from having a strong, united front before the enemy, who would like nothing more than to devour us.    

 So, how do we avoid unnecessary division? After much prayer and discussion, I think it would be helpful to prioritize things by agreeing on what doctrines and/or practices are essential and non-negotiable, based on God’s Word – thus the critical need to adopt detailed doctrinal statements of faith or confessions, despite the fact that some call these “legalistic.” Let me say emphatically, “They are not legalistic.” I think it is very important to clearly and specifically identify what a church believes to avoid heresy and false teaching. Continuing, this would require defining what the “primary” issues or fundamental truths are which should never be compromised, such as the “Five Solas,” Christ’s deity, incarnation, virgin birth, and sinlessness; the gospel, including the fall, man’s sin nature, the temporal and eternal consequences of sin, Christ’s sacrificial atonement on the cross for our sins, regeneration, justification by grace (not works) through faith in Christ alone, repentance, Christ’s resurrection, and the second coming; God’s divine attributes; the Trinity; the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture; the need for sanctification (spiritual growth) and spiritual fruit in believers, etc. Personally, I think these are “hills to die on.”

Then, I think it would promote unity (i.e., not ecumenism which compromises the truth) and peace among (true) brethren if we could really try to avoid judging one another regarding “secondary” issues (i.e., things not related to salvation, etc.). Personally, I think it is quite unbecoming, unloving, and inappropriate for believers (especially, leaders) to mock or deride other believers who do not share the same convictions in non-essential matters and call them legalistic, liberal, heretical, ignorant, spiritually immature, or some other derogatory term. Examples include differences relating to the Lord’s Supper (e.g., closed or not closed, frequency, etc.); baptism (credo or paedo); ecclesiology (Presbyterian, Congregational, Baptist, etc.); eschatology (pre-, post-, or a- millennial; pre-, mid-, or post- trib, etc.); liturgy ((psalms, hymns, and/or praise songs (based on solid doctrine); using confessions or not)); preferred Bible versions (not referring to heretical ones); views regarding the Sabbath, images of Jesus, etc.

I have found that many times the people who label other churches or believers legalistic for their convictions have not seriously researched these matters themselves (e.g., carefully studied Scripture and early church beliefs and practices, etc.) to verify if perhaps there might be some truth there and justification for their beliefs. (That’s one reason I decided in the past to study early church history. I wanted to know the truth and to find out how the modern church differs from the original early church. I was amazed at what I discovered! There are many things (not related to salvation), which are not taught today that were in times past. And I’m not saying everything that was practiced in the early church was correct. There was false teaching then, too, and one has to be very discerning and compare everything to Scripture. But a lot of things have been “forgotten” and “neglected” and thus, are no longer practiced – again, things relating to sanctification, not salvation. So, many (myself included before I began delving deeper into the Scriptures, theology, and church history) just make assumptions on what they were taught in their church or growing up, instead of checking it out for themselves like the Bereans did. I think if they were to really research these matters and dig deep, they might just be amazed at what they discover and change their views on certain issues. For instance, I went to one Arminian Baptist church, where they ridiculed Presbyterians and called them liberal and heretical, because they were paedobaptists and Calvinists. Not being consistent, they also called Presbyterians legalistic, because they use a liturgy with the Lord’s Prayer, confessions, Scripture readings, etc. (which I agree with and just like the ancient church did, according to church history). On the flip side, I also attended some Presbyterian churches, where Baptists were belittled and criticized as being ignorant, legalistic, and unloving because of their position on baptism, their convictions about Biblical moral standards and family values, their impassioned “fiery” preaching against sin, and their warning the lost about eternal judgment (balancing it with God’s mercy and a call to repentance), in imitation of the Puritans and preachers in the Great Awakening, John the Baptist, the apostle John, and the Lord Jesus Himself. Still, other churches (both Baptist and Presbyterian) called other churches that didn't use the KJV Bible liberal, while other churches labeled those who prefer the KJV legalistic. So sad! I guess I would be criticized by both churches, since I prefer to use several Bible versions (e.g., LXX, Syriac, NKJV, KJV, etc.), after a careful analysis of many different translations, comparing verse by verse over several years. And I’d probably also be ridiculed by the other churches, because I’m sort of a blend of both Baptist and Presbyterian – i.e., Reformed Baptist.

I’m very saddened when I see all this arguing and separating over these kinds of issues. I just want to plead with people saying, “Can’t we get along despite our differences in secondary matters?” We share in common what matters most – the gospel, salvation, etc. Let’s love each other instead of criticizing, maligning, and looking down on those who hold different views on non-essential issues.  Again, I'm very grieved by all the division caused by the intolerance of certain brethren toward other brethren who differ in these “secondary” areas. And sadly, those individuals often do not voice their views lovingly and humbly, but rather proudly and condescendingly. Frankly, I think the church is divided enough. I don’t want it to get worse. Now in saying this, I’m not implying that all division within the church is wrong. Quite the contrary. Some division is actually necessary (and sovereignly appointed by God), as the apostle Paul stated, in order to distinguish true from false brethren and doctrine. Other than that, though, I seriously think the enemy is trying to divide true believers, especially in these dark times, when we need each other most to fight this spiritual battle together.

I’ve attended and visited many different conservative churches since I was saved, and honestly, I don’t know of any two that agree on EVERYTHING – even within the same denomination or church. My personal view is that no one church or denomination has a “perfect” theology (i.e., knows all things perfectly regarding non-essential issues). Only God, who knows all things and authored the Scriptures, does. The amount of knowledge and comprehension we have of God’s Word is still so very limited and minimal – like comparing an ant hill to Mount Everest. Yes, we can and must know the essential truths and those things necessary for salvation. But I wouldn’t be surprised when we get to Heaven if we discover a lot of things we didn’t know about the Scriptures, and we’re humbled by learning that we were actually wrong in some of our views (i.e., regarding “secondary,” not “primary” issues). Interestingly, I have observed that while one church may be informed about a certain doctrine or practice, another church may have knowledge in a different area that the first church did not have, and vice versa. That is, though we may be informed about certain things, we may be ignorant in other areas, which others are knowledgeable in. Can our pride handle that – that we might just not be as informed as we thought we were? More importantly, if we discover, by God’s grace, that we were wrong in some particular area, would we be willing to admit our mistake and discard the “old” view and replace it with the “new” one, which is more accurate Biblically, even if it means we may have to be embarrassed or stand alone and be in the minority? Hard decisions – but very important and critical to our spiritual growth. Growth, by the way, implies that we are not perfect in knowledge and make mistakes and that there is a process, whereby we learn new things, by God’s grace. No one knows everything perfectly except God.  Acknowledging this, I think we ought to be humble and realize that no one knows everything. In fact, the longer I’ve been a Christian, the more I realize how very little I know and how much more I need to learn. Even with all that I have learned and experienced (by God’s grace), I don’t think I’ve climbed to even the peak of an “ant hill” of Biblical knowledge compared to the vast Himalayas that still lie before me. In my Christian walk, I have had to change my position on certain “secondary” doctrines in at least a few areas as God has revealed new truths to me. I don’t think for one moment that I have learned everything I need to know – not at all. That is why I am not dogmatic on certain “secondary” issues, but rather reserve my judgment until I am better informed by thoroughly researching the matter. It’s much easier to say, “I’m not sure or I don’t know” than to insist that you’re absolutely right on some matter, only to discover later with some embarrassment that you were mistaken. I wonder sometimes if perhaps God intentionally planned it this way - that no single person or church would have a monopoly on all Biblical knowledge, in order to keep us humble.  (Just something to ponder….)  

So, that’s one area wherein I’ve observed the term “legalism” being misused or misapplied. Another area is where people wrongly claim that sanctification (i.e., progressive, not positional sanctification) equals legalism. Clearly, it does not. In fact, that is the furthest thing from the truth. This false teaching has become so extreme that in some churches or groups, the mere mention of spiritual growth, pursuing holiness, striving to be conformed to Christ’s image, or (God forbid) saying or even implying that we can please God and love Him by obeying His “law” or “commandments” (John 14:15), is not only taboo and cannot be discussed, but it is also unjustly condemned as legalism. Incredible! In essence, something good, which is clearly commanded by God and is a mark of true believers, is being called evil. This abuse of the term “legalism” is undeniably false and a strategy of the enemy to deceive both believers and unbelievers into believing that justification can be separated from sanctification. Someone who is truly justified (or declared righteous based on Christ’s, not our own, righteousness) WILL also be sanctified – beginning at the moment he is saved and not many years later. In other words, if someone is truly saved, it will be evidenced by his transformed life – not perfection, but striving to live in obedience to Christ, by God’s grace. This is not LEGALISM. Such teaching reflects an “antinomian” (lit. against the law) spirit, which is not of God. Satan wants us to believe that we can be saved and yet continue practicing sin or living in a habitually carnal lifestyle no differently than the world – in other words, that we’re delivered from the “penalty” of sin but not the enslaving “power” of sin, which clearly contradicts Scripture.

One common tactic of the enemy is to distort God’s truth by skewing or slanting it to one extreme or the other – as in the case of legalism and antinomianism, which are on opposite sides of the spectrum. BOTH are false and injurious to the Church. There needs to be a balance. On one hand, we are saved ENTIRELY by God’s grace and not by our own effort or good works. This is seen in God’s electing us before time began purely by His mercy and not based on any foreseen works or decisions; regenerating us while we are still spiritually dead, unresponsive, and passive; and granting us the gifts of faith and repentance with which to be saved. On the other hand, once God saves or justifies us, He immediately begins to work in us to mature us so that we can gradually become more like Him through a process called progressive sanctification. Though regeneration is “monergistic” (i.e., exclusively the work of God), sanctification is “synergistic” in that we are to cooperate and participate in our spiritual growth (though all the credit should still go to God, because He enables us to do even this). Put another way, all who have been truly justified will be sanctified, and all who are sanctified evidence that they have been justified. Justification and sanctification are inseparable. Any attempt to separate the two will result in either liberalism (i.e., antinomianism) or legalism, respectively.

So, in order to counter this false teaching (i.e., that sanctification is legalistic), we need to clearly define legalism. What is it? At its simplest level, legalism is placing one’s trust or confidence in man, that is, in human effort, wisdom, abilities, etc., in order to gain salvation. In other words, legalism relies on man’s (imperfect and inadequate) works, ingenuity, skills, knowledge, experience, etc. instead of on God’s perfect and complete works (i.e., Christ’s sinless life and atoning death on the cross for our sins). Specifically, legalism is any attempt to earn or merit salvation through performing good deeds, attaining spiritual knowledge, using talents or abilities, observing ceremonies/rites (e.g., baptism, communion, etc.), keeping church traditions (e.g., observing religious holidays, etc.), etc. Though these things are good (if performed with the right motive and according to Scripture), they can become idols if they replace God as our object of faith and are depended upon for salvation. Additionally, legalism attempts to add to God’s law with man’s traditions, making God’s law appear to be more restrictive and burdensome. This contrasts to liberalism (antinomianism), the dominant philosophy of most churches today, which seeks to diminish or remove God’s law, while abusing His grace to justify sin.

Other than on Christ, we should never depend on anyone or anything else (e.g., religious leaders, good works, spiritual achievements, etc.) to save us – not even for a moment. Though Scripture repeatedly emphasizes that faith without works is dead, we must be careful not to put the cart before the horse and believe that salvation is in any way dependent upon good works. Good works are the product or effect, and not the source or cause, of salvation. And though we are all accountable for our works and expected to do what is right, salvation does not come as a result of our having done more good deeds than bad deeds, as some suppose. This would be impossible, anyway, because, apart from God’s grace, we could not truly perform any good deeds at all (before conversion), since “all our righteousness is as filthy rags” in God’s eyes (Is. 63:4). Even the best of our works are tainted with sin. The only way we could possibly do what is good (as God defines it) would be after God regenerates us (i.e., makes us spiritually alive). That is, only after God transforms our hearts and puts His Spirit within us, are we able and willing to love and obey Him. Until then, we cannot do anything truly good, as the Bible clearly states: “There is none righteous, no, not one… there is none that doeth good, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10, 12). Thus, the only way we could ever receive eternal life would not be to trust in our good works (which do not truly exist anyway, until we are regenerated and given the ability to do good), but to trust in GOD, who saves us by His grace alone through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Though many have been taught this Scriptural truth – that we are saved by Christ alone – deep down, they still believe that salvation is dependent on their “doing” something (i.e., performing good deeds), rather than on their “being” something (i.e., being born again). That is, though they may verbally assent to the correct doctrine regarding salvation (i.e., justification by faith alone), in actual practice, they deny it by consciously or unconsciously trusting in their baptism, church attendance, or ministry involvement to save them. In doing this, they are really trusting in their good works or human efforts to save them, which, again, is legalism. Undeniably, these things are good and should be encouraged (in believers), especially since they are commanded by God. However, they or any other good works cannot save anyone. Nor can these things guarantee or confirm without a doubt that someone is saved. It is quite possible for someone to get baptized, attend a church, and even serve in ministry while still in an unregenerate (spiritually dead) state. Thus, we must be careful not to trust in any good works, not even spiritually related works, to save us. We must trust in CHRIST alone to save us. More specifically, salvation is only by grace through faith in Christ’s atonement (payment) on the cross for our sin.

Another caution is that even if we acknowledge that faith in Christ’s atonement is necessary for salvation, but we then try to add our own good works to His already finished work, we will still be guilty of legalism. Contrary to what many believe, legalism is not simply attempting to replace, but also supplement, Christ’s work with our own good works - as if His work were somehow deficient or lacking! Let me state it quite clearly. We are not saved by supplementing the Lord Jesus’ perfect righteousness with our own imperfect (or more accurately, worthless) righteousness. To try to add anything to His work would suggest that the Lord needed our help and that His atonement was not sufficient to pay for our sins (God forbid!).

Knowing this, we should not give even one moment’s thought to the false (and heretical) notion that what Christ did on our behalf (i.e., living a perfect, sinless life and dying on the cross for us) was not sufficient to procure eternal life for us and pay the penalty for our sins. Again, this implies that He needs our help or contribution (i.e., our good works) in order to save us. We can be assured that His perfect work (both in His life and death) requires no supplementation or improvement on our part whatsoever. That is, we are not saved by the Lord Jesus and our good works or by the Lord Jesus and our church attendance or even by the Lord Jesus and our baptism. No, quite clearly and unquestionably, we are saved by the Lord Jesus Christ alone (without anything else).

Another sign of legalism is that it places confidence in and emphasizes external morality (i.e., mere outward compliance to God’s law), but virtually ignores the equally, if not more, important matter of internal virtue (i.e., inward conformity to God’s law, including secret thoughts, motives, and attitudes). External moralists or legalists are under the illusion that if they just live visibly “moral” or “decent” lives, they will be accepted by God. Put another way, they assume that by simply avoiding the grosser sins (e.g., theft, murder, drunkenness, sexual immorality, etc.) and striving to be “good citizens” (i.e., being honest, hard-working, helpful, etc.), they will gain favor with God. Their emphasis is placed on what is visible (i.e., what man can see) and not on what is invisible (i.e., what God can see hidden in the heart). Quite clearly, those who focus on external morality are more concerned about what man thinks rather than what God thinks.

Of course, there must be a balance. I am not implying that we should not be concerned about how we behave outwardly or conduct ourselves in front of others - quite the contrary. God does not call us to live in sin, but in holiness. As such, we are to actively pursue what is good, while resisting and avoiding all that is evil - even things that might have the appearance of evil. If we claim to be Christians but cannot be distinguished from unbelievers, by living noticeably moral lives, how can we expect to act as salt and light in the world and set a godly example for others to follow? What I’m saying is that we should not limit our morality to simply what is visible or external, since this would be both hypocritical and futile. Any external morality should be reflective of an internal righteousness proceeding from a renewed heart that has been radically transformed by the grace of God. If we are truly saved, we should be holy (by God’s grace) on the inside and on the outside or possess both an internal and external righteousness. In fact, it would be impossible for a true believer not to be visibly moral or to conceal his goodness from others, since this is what naturally proceeds and overflows from a regenerate heart. Thus, mere external morality, which is only humanly generated and not the product of a renewed heart, is both empty and superficial and will not please God. But outward morality that results from the new birth (i.e., being spiritually born again) and reflects a godly heart within is both good and acceptable before God.

The following are other examples of legalism:

- Believing that salvation can result from mere Christian affiliation (i.e., having relationships with believers or Christian organizations). To be truly saved, it is not enough to simply be connected or related to a Christian; one must be a Christian. Salvation is only granted by God on an individual basis and is not contingent on any group membership or affiliation.

- Relying on one’s office or position (e.g., pastor, elder, deacon, teacher, etc.) in the church or spiritual knowledge (e.g., theological degrees, etc.) to merit salvation. Believe it or not, someone can have the whole Bible memorized and even be the president of a seminary and yet be totally unacquainted with God (experientially and personally) and be a stranger and an enemy to Him. Though his mind may be full of facts, his heart can be cold and far removed from God.

- Being self-focused and putting the spotlight on “self” (i.e., one’s achievements or gifts) instead of on God.

- Putting man before God by esteeming human wisdom, traditions, philosophies, and precepts above God’s Word (e.g., accepting decisions, doctrines, or policies of churches, denominations, or ecumenical councils that clearly conflict with Scripture).

- Relying on pragmatism or trusting in human ingenuity, methodologies, and/or marketing techniques to “get results” (e.g., the Seeker Sensitive movement). Instead of depending on the simple preaching of God’s Word and His Spirit to save souls, pragmatic churches depend on their speakers’ eloquence, gifted musicians, programs, marketing strategies, business acumen, entertainment, etc. to attract newcomers, increase attendance, and (supposedly) convert souls.

- Trusting that a past “decision” or performance (saying the sinner’s prayer, walking the aisle, etc.), instead of God, saved someone, even if his life was not transformed. This kind of “decisional regeneration” often results in a false assurance.

In brief, this is what true legalism is. Knowing this, I think we need to be careful not to confuse this with differences regarding “secondary” matters (e.g., some denominational distinctives) or in matters dealing with progressive sanctification (i.e., spiritual growth), which is clearly commanded by God and is one of the primary marks of true believers. Once again, sanctification does not equal legalism. Such teaching is false and is antinomian in nature. For more on this subject and a much more thorough explanation, I would highly recommend Dr. Steve Lawson’s message entitled “The Deception, the Devil, and Deliverance” below.

 

With love in Christ,

 

Elizabeth

 

Steve Lawson teaches at both the Master’s Seminary (John MacArthur) and Ligonier Ministries (R.C. Sproul).

 

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?m=t&s=31722134738595