[Biblemat] S) ARE YOU A LEGALIST?

[J5827Sasser at wmconnect.com]

Brethren and Friends, Jim Sasser here.  Here is a study from my
files.  Use to the glory of God.

ARE YOU A LEGALIST?

     As faithful churches of Christ strive to follow the New Test-
ament pattern of worship, proclamation, and organization 
(Jno. 4:24; Col. 3:17), they often are charged by the denomin-
ational world, as well as by other members of the churches
of Christ, as being "legalistic."  In certain circles, it has be-
come taboo to even speak of a "plan" of salvation.  It is thoug-
ht that having to meet conditions, in some way, nullifies the
grace of God.  Is the charge justified?  The answer hinges on
how the term "legalist" is defined.  More importantly, consid-
eration must be given to how the term is used.

What Is Legalism?: -- The first significant hurdle to this query
lies within the definition of the term itself.  According to Web-
ster's Comprehensive Dictionary, "legalism" is defined three
ways.  The first definition is "close adherence to law; strict
conformity to law."  The second definition offered  is a suppo-
sed theological definition, "The doctrine of salvation by works
as distinguished from that by grace."  The third definition is
"The tendency to observe the letter rather than the spirit of
the law."  All three definitions are of interest.

     It is noteworthy that the terms "legalism" or "legalist" are
not found in the Scriptures.  Yet, it is difficult to argue, given
the common definitions of the term, that the Pharisees of
Jesus' day weren't thought of in this light (Matt. 15:7-9; ch.
23).  Nonetheless, it should be suggested that what Jesus confronted in the 
Pharisees was quintessentially different from what some presume to be 
confronting today.

     Usually the "legalist" moniker is applied based upon the 
demand fro Scriptural authority for religious practices.  It is
suggested that churches of Christ place too much emphasis
on "the letter of the law" while ignoring "the spirit of the law."
Keep in mind, this was the third definition mentioned above.

     To understand the letter of the law is to understand the
spirit of the law.  This is a part of good exegesis.  Close atten-
tion to the law, and the spirit in which it was given, is critical
to ascertaining the correct meaning of any given text.  The
two should not be separated, for the law was given for a spec-
ific purpose.  Both must be respected.

     Next, what of the legitimacy of the second definition?  When did 
legalism become associated with "The doctrine of 
salvation by works, as distinquished from that by grace"?
History seems to indicate, due to Roman Catholicism's empha-
sis upon a works-based salvation, that reformers like Luther
, Calvin, and others propelled themselves to the opposite end
of the salvation spectrum in an effort to distinquish themselv-
es from the abuses of Roman Catholicism.  "Grace only" or
"faith only" advocates, in my estimation, have knowingly or
possibly unknowingly adopted this mindset.  In this author's
opinion, their conclusion has been that obedience to condit-
ions for salvation constitutes "legalism."

     Does the respect and observance of God's required condit-
ions for salvation necessitate that New Testament Christians
be called "legalists"?  If certain man-made definitions are truly legitimate, 
thent he answer would be "yes."  Even so, it
would be only in the sense of the first definition.

     Salvation is "by grace through faith...not of works, lest any man should 
boast" (Eph. 2:8,9).  The works of men throu-
gh the Law of Moses, contextually, were not the basis on 
which God would extend salvation to humanity.  A God, "rich
in mercy" (Eph. 2:4), is responsible for pardon through Christ
Some of the greatest biblical figures ever to have lived, exem-plary examples 
of faithfulness to God, did nothing by reason
of how they lived to warrant God sending His "only begotten
Son" (Jno. 3:16) to the cross.  Simply because such is the 
case, though, doesn't warrant the conclusion that man can
do nothing in order to be saved.  Neither can it be said that
biblical works of righteousness are not important (Jas. 2:24).

The Demand For Adherence To The Law: -- By design, the 
Hebrews writer expressed the development of Christianity
with legal terminology.  He illustrated the replacement of the
Old Covenant ("testament") by the New Covenant ("testa-
ment") with the example of the execution of a legal will:  "And
for this cause He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that
by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions
that were under the First Testament, they which are called
might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.  For where
a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of 
the testator.  For a testament is of force after men are dead:
otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth"
(Heb. 9:15-17).

     Later, he emphasized one of Jesus' purposes, "Then said
He, Lo, I come to do Thy Will, O God." and then provides
commentary by stating, "He taketh away the first, that He may establish the 
second.  By the which Will we are sancti-
fied through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for
all" (Heb. 10:9,10).  The first will or law had to be removed so
that the second could be incorporated.  The two wills could
not function concomitantly over a people united as one by the blood of Jesus 
(Eph. 2:14,15).

     Furthermore, consider the terminology used by Paul that,
likewise, established that the gospel system is a system of
law.  To the church at Rome, he spoke of "the law of faith"
(Rom. 3:27) and "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus"
(8:2).  In his epistle to the churches of Galatia, he command-ed, "Bear ye 
one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of
Christ" (Gal. 6:2).

     James taught that it was by God's "will," that the group
to which he wrote were begotten with "the word of truth" (Jas. 1:18).  He 
urged them to "receive with meekness the en-
grafted word," which was able to save the soul (vs. 21).  He
continued by insisting they be "doers of the word, and not
hearers only" (vs. 22).  This "doer of the word" would be one
who would continually look to "the perfect law of liberty" (vs.
25).  James, by divine inspiration, sought to convey that Christianity was a 
system of law.

     Finally, Jesus Himself taught that He was implementing a
law that must be obeyed.  "If ye continue in My Word, then
are ye My disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and
the truth shall make you free" (Jno. 8:31,32).  He unhesitating-
ly placed conditions upon discipleship.  Was Jesus demand-
ing "strict adherence" to His Word when He said, "If ye love
Me, keep My commandments" (Jno. 14:15)?  What did Jesus
mean when He told the same men, "He that hath My comman-
dments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me 
shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him
and manifiest Myself to him" (vs. 21)?  If obedience to the laws of the New 
Testament is "legalism," then Jesus was a
"legalist" (cf. Jno. 6:38; Heb. 5:8,9) and the churches of Christ are, 
therefore, in good company.

     Interestingly, the same dictionary cited previously defines
"obedience" as "Submission to command, prohibition, law, or
duty."  It appears a synonymic relationship between the two
terms exists.  It therefore must be asked, "Can a person really be submissive 
to a law without closely adhering to it?"

The Legalism Jesus Exposed: -- If it can be said that Jesus
exposed "legalism" per se, then what kind was it?  When
Jesus criticized the Pharisees and scribes, He wasn't criticiz-
ing their "strict adherence to law."  It would have been contra-
dictory for God to have demanded obedience to the Law of
Moses by the Hebrew people and then have Jesus condemn
them for it.  What Jesus exposed was how they taught "for
doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).  The Phari-
sees had supplanted the Will of God with the will of men.  More emphasis had 
been placed on oral traditions and inter-
pretations of the Law of Moses by the fathers, than the law
itself.

     In Matt. 23, Jesus offered a scathing rebuke of the scribes
and Pharisees.  He indicted them for binding "heavy burdens"
(vs. 4) upon the Jewish people.  Were those "heavy burdens"
God's Will or their own?  It seems the Jews were burdened
more by having to adhere to Pharisaic tradition than keeping
the Law of Moses.  These traditions and doctrines of men
should not have been bound upon the masses by the Phari-
sees.  This constituted an addition to God's law, a violation of
the law itself (Deut. 4:6), and therefore they were rebuked.

Conclusion: -- God, through His Word, demands obedience
(Heb. 5:8,9).  Obedience and faith work harmoniously (Heb. 11), but to assert 
that faithful churches of Christ do not be-
lieve in salvation by grace is unfounded.  To contend that
churches of Christ believe in salvation solely by works is to
contend for that which isn't true.  To say that man plays no
part in the salvation equation (Eph. 2:8,9; cf. Acts 2:40) is
equally untrue.  Therefore, the theological definition of "legal-
ism" stands on the basis of misconception and in that sense
it cannot be applied to faithful congregations of the Lord's
people.   ------ Doug Young, via, The Sower, Vol. 52, No. 2,
March/April 2007.   </HTML>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.biblematters.net/pipermail/biblemat/attachments/20070416/214f815e/attachment-0001.html