# Legalism



## Don Kistler (Aug 22, 2011)

There have been numerous charges of legalism against John MacArthur because of his recent comments about the "Young, Restless, and Reformed"'s propensity towards the use of alcohol, questionable language, references to sex, and other things that bother him.

This brings me to the question of defining legalism. For some, it is anytime you question a behavior they don't want to give up. For others, it is criticizing a behavior that is not SPECIFICALLY mentioned as sin in the Bible. It seems to me that legalism biblically is the idea that you can earn God's favor by certain behaviors (or lack thereof), that a person is MORE pleasing to God because of what he does or does not do than someone else.

I'd be interested in your take on this. Do you folks think there is a definitive meaning of what legalism is?


----------



## N. Eshelman (Aug 22, 2011)

I agree with your definition. It seems to be the classic understanding of the term. 

Another question that would arise in my mind- who would you actually bring these charges before if one were to actually charge him?


----------



## Douglas P. (Aug 22, 2011)

I would say the charge(s) of legalism being brought against MacArthur are that of the broadest definition of legalism. Namely, he has turned "not drinking" and other activities into a good work. (see WCF 16.1) The other narrower definitions would be acquiring salvation by works and keeping salvation by works.


----------



## JM (Aug 22, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> I would say the charge(s) of legalism being brought against MacArthur are that of the broadest definition of legalism. Namely, he has turned "not drinking" and other activities into a good work. (see WCF 16.1) The other narrower definitions would be acquiring salvation by works and keeping salvation by works.



Sounds about right.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 22, 2011)

Don Kistler said:


> There have been numerous charges of legalism against John MacArthur because of his recent comments about the "Young, Restless, and Reformed"'s propensity towards the use of alcohol, questionable language, references to sex, and other things that bother him.
> 
> This brings me to the question of defining legalism. For some, it is anytime you question a behavior they don't want to give up. For others, it is criticizing a behavior that is not SPECIFICALLY mentioned as sin in the Bible. It seems to me that legalism biblically is the idea that you can earn God's favor by certain behaviors (or lack thereof), that a person is MORE pleasing to God because of what he does or does not do than someone else.
> 
> I'd be interested in your take on this. Do you folks think there is a definitive meaning of what legalism is?


I think that is a sound definition but I would also add that, in addition to a Pelagian form of legalism there is a semi-Pelagian form where God goes most of the way with grace and we fill in the blanks with our faithfulness to what is granted. 

On the issue of labeling Christians, I think it's inappropriate to label a person as a "legalist" when, broadly speaking, they affirm their utter helplessness in keeping the law of God and their need for Christ. The charge is leveled too easily. I believe it is possible for even the strongest advocate of evangelical grace to seek blessing from God "in the flesh". This does not make them a "legalist" per se but it it does seem that each of us is prone to looking within at times and being guilty of a type of legalism, which is inconsistent with our status as adopted children of God.


----------



## Rich Koster (Aug 22, 2011)

I thought that most people referred to what J Mac did ,was binding the conscience, not legalism. Maybe Phariseeism (is that a word?), but not legalism. Maybe I'm confused. I'll just sip a glass of wine while you all wrestle out the terminology.  I personally prefer MANLAW.


----------



## KMK (Aug 22, 2011)

Don Kistler said:


> It seems to me that legalism biblically is the idea that you can earn God's favor by certain behaviors (or lack thereof), that a person is MORE pleasing to God because of what he does or does not do than someone else.



I agree with this definition.


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 22, 2011)

Legalism is taking away from (antinomianism) or adding to (pharisaism) the Word of God.


----------



## Don Kistler (Aug 22, 2011)

But I raise this question: Who says that that is what legalism is?


----------



## Jack K (Aug 22, 2011)

Any believer who tends to compare himself with others or measure his standing before God based on how carefully he follows either legitimate laws of God or the customs of church culture is a legalist at heart.

The heart issue is usually most clearly seen in the desire to measure yourself based on whatever rules you follow. So you can actually be either right or wrong about an issue such as alcohol and still be a legalist, or not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 23, 2011)

Don Kistler said:


> But I raise this question: Who says that that is what legalism is?


I don't know if you're asking: "Who gets to decide what the semantic domain of the word is?" or "When is it appropriate to apply that term to another?"

For instance, I don't like Dictionary.com's answer to this:
le·gal·ism   [lee-guh-liz-uhm]
noun
1. strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, especially to the letter rather than the spirit.
2. Theology .
a. the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works.
b. the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.

The nature of words (as you well know) is that they take on a broad range of meanings. I certainly judge mine and other's behavior in terms of adherence to precise laws but then I'd have to define what I mean by "judging" as to whether I'm just a Christian called what he should be doing or whether I'm "judging" the other in terms of condemnation.

At best, we each need to apply GNC from the word of God to evaluate conduct, words, and motivations of others. I've seen men in Elder training who got to the RPW and concluded (on the theology of the first glance) that the WCF divines were Pharisess on this area. As I noted earlier, it is certainly possible to have a sound Christian confession and let one's scruples in a certain area cross into the realm of patterns that can reasonably compared to what Christ and Paul warned against. That said, it requires not a small amount of Biblical wisdom in certain situations to make that division. I think the average person needs to be pretty careful about throwing that charge around too easily.


----------



## JBaldwin (Aug 23, 2011)

Legalism is a matter of the heart as well as the actions.

I have not heard John McArthur's exact statements, and I don't know his heart; therefore, I would be slow to charge him with legalism. What I will say is that perhaps John McArthur is noticing that the church as a whole is more tolerant of sin than it used to be. Is that legalism? Or is that making a "judgment" of how things really are?


----------



## FCC (Aug 23, 2011)

It seems that the charge of legalism is thrown about whenever someone disagrees with the stance of another. 



KMK said:


> It seems to me that legalism biblically is the idea that you can earn God's favor by certain behaviors (or lack thereof), that a person is MORE pleasing to God because of what he does or does not do than someone else.



I would agree that this is a sound definition of legalism. We need to tread very carefully when we begin to accuse others of legalism!


----------



## Don Kistler (Aug 23, 2011)

Yes, we do need to be very careful of charging someone with legalism, because if it means that we can earn God's favor by our actions, then a legalist does not believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Legalism, by that definition, cannot be Christian.


----------



## Rufus (Aug 23, 2011)

I read his "Beer, Bohemianism" article, and I would not call it legalistic, he brought up good points, even if you don't agree with him on every point.


----------



## JM (Aug 23, 2011)

This is a quote from another thread on PB about Reformed vs. Fundamentalist thinking:

Carnality is not measured by what goes into our mouths, but by what comes out (Matt. 15.11) and piety is not measured by our abstention from temporal pleasures (Col. 2.20-23). The fundamentalist mindset is akin to the gnostic mindset which led to asceticism and monasteries. The Reformed understand that all of life is sacred, that is, temporal things are not evil in themselves, neither is non-ecclesiastical employment to be despised if it is lawful, but rather God is glorified in the right use of the things of this world. True godliness is a matter of the heart. Therefore, spiritual pride or neglect is a much greater concern to the Reformed than whether there is a beer in someone’s refrigerator at home. The Reformed view themselves as pilgrims traveling through this world with our eyes and hearts lifted heavenward to the next, which is to say, using the things of this world rightly but not setting our hearts on them but keeping our treasure above and our eyes on Christ (Heb. 12.2).​


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 23, 2011)

Excellent quote, Jason.


----------

