# The boundaries of legalism in Christian instruction



## Michael (Jan 2, 2011)

It is often explained that legalism consists of supplementing God’s law with man’s law or unwarranted interpretation thereof.

With that in mind, when approaching our catechisms we find lengthy expositions of God’s law. It has been asserted that if even one part of these expositions stray at any point from the actual meaning of scripture then the catechism is there in danger of becoming legalistic to that extent. At face value I believe that we can all agree on that, just as the Divines surely would have. This is plainly why the painstaking effort of providing scripture proofs for every line of instruction was commissioned. 

One example given would be WLC 139, which while expositing the 7th Commandment includes instruction against sins such as idleness and gluttony.

Of course the first order of business would be to examine the belabored scripture proofs. But this does not always settle the matter. There are those who readily confirm [regarding the above example] that idleness and gluttony are sinful, yet even in light of the scripture references will still deny that those sins qualify as part of God’s specific commandment against adultery, thus rendering such interpretation as “legalistic" to some extent.

But is this a moot point? Apart from the confessional believer affirming the scriptural warrant of idleness and gluttony within the realm of adultery, does the charge of "legalism" fall flat simply because those are biblically acknowledged sins in their own right and not contrived sins of man's imagination? Or is there more to the matter?

As we have all seen before this issue is raised in more complicated fashion from time to time around other discussions of proactive Christian duty and obligation [i.e. worship, civil magistrate, etc.].

Obviously not everyone will agree. Just wondering how you handle it. What are your priorities for the boundaries of legalism in Christian instruction?


----------



## Wayne (Jan 2, 2011)

Hopefully I can add this without sidetracking the discussion:



> just as the Divines surely would have. This is plainly why the painstaking effort of providing scripture proofs for every line of instruction was commissioned.



Right out of the gate, your construct depends on several assumptions. More concretely, there is a problem, in that the Divines presented their work to the Parliament without Scripture proofs attached. Parliament then sent them back to append those. Thus, that would seem to contradict one line of your reasoning, namely, the historical record would appear to indicate that the Divines did not see a need of Scripture proofs being attached to their work. 

[someone please correct me, if my memory of what happened is fuzzy or just plain wrong]


----------



## Michael (Jan 2, 2011)

No you are spot on. They were commissioned to insert the proofs and returned to conform every line to Scripture. I don't really take the absence of the proofs at the outset to suggest that the Divines in any way approved of straying from God's Word.


----------



## KMK (Jan 2, 2011)

Michael said:


> It is often explained that legalism consists of supplementing God’s law with man’s law or unwarranted interpretation thereof.



I think this better describes 'hypocrisy' than 'legalism'. (Mark 7) Legalism is the doctrine that man can make himself more or less righteous by the rules he follows.


----------



## Wayne (Jan 2, 2011)

> I don't really take the absence of the proofs at the outset to suggest that the Divines in any way approved of straying from God's Word.



Glad to hear it. Nor do I. To suggest otherwise would be ludicrous.

It is important to realize that even when the Scripture proofs were added, that they were not intended to be exhaustive. Typically they are just samples of what might be brought forward in demonstration of a given doctrine or point.

EDIT: But isn't this the core of the question/issue you are raising?:



> Of course the first order of business would be to examine the belabored scripture proofs. But this does not always settle the matter. There are those who readily confirm [regarding the above example] that idleness and gluttony are sinful, yet even in light of the scripture references will still deny that those sins qualify as part of God’s specific commandment against adultery, thus rendering such interpretation as “legalistic" to some extent



The short answer would be to start digging in some commentaries or sermons by some the Divines and their contemporaries. I'm sure someone can soon point out a few that take up the matter and expound on it. Trusty Jeremiah Burroughs is at my side here and I'll take a look later.


----------



## Michael (Jan 2, 2011)

Wayne said:


> It is important to realize that even when the Scripture proofs were added, that they were not intended to be exhaustive. Typically they are just samples of what might be brought forward in demonstration of a given doctrine or point.



Understood. The proofs however were intended to provide ample evidence of support from Scripture, even if not exhaustive. Given the example set forth in the OP, I doubt many would normally consider idleness or gluttony as part of the 7th Commandment without further Scripture to suggest as much.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 2, 2011)

There has been a thread on this before, in which it was suggested that since idleness, gluttony and drunkenness are lusts _of the flesh_ as is lust for a woman that doesn't belong to you or for women that don't belong to you, they are included here.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/wlc-139-a-63991/

Legalism is a more complicated subject. There is a legalism that overthrows the Gospel e.g. saying that you must do this or that in order to be saved e.g. you must be circumcised as well as believe in Christ in order to be right with God (as the Judaisers in Galatia were teaching) and there is a legalism that adds to the proper ethical requirements for Christians and non-Christians while yet teaching that justicication is by faith alone in Christ alone through grace alone.

The former type of heretical legalism always involves additions to the ethical requirements of Scripture in order to get one right with God, while the latter form of legalism can be found in true Gospel churches.

E.g. some churches where the Gospel is preached will teach that Christians should eschew all alcohol. they would not say that this is necessary for getting right with God - justification - but they would say that they believe that this is the way the Christian should live - sanctification and good works.

They're putting a burden on the Christian _for this life_ that God's Word doesn't put on him, rather than denying him salvation by striking at the heart of the Gospel.

Nevertheless, the more that erroneous ethical burdens and additions are made by Gospel churches, the more the freeness of grace in Christ can be obscured by legalistic pedantry, fencing of the law, and dubious interpretations made into divine mandate, and the more the danger that the Gospel church could stray into heretical legalism. 

Since signs of sanctification are an important way by which we are encouraged that we have evidence of justification and by which the elders may deem if someone should be suspended from access to the Lord's Supper, if additional ethical requrements are made of Christians to those of Scripture, these can become erroneous shibboleths by which we judge whether we or others are converted and hence justified. 

The opposite can happen with licence and liberalism. 

Two reasons the Divines went into such detail on God's law in the Larger Catechism were to

(a) Set forth the height, breadth and depth of God's law.

(b) To militate against the error of antinomianism.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 2, 2011)

See also Ridgely's comment on WLC 139, which I expect illustrates the Puritan thought going into the answer of this question.
A body of divinity: wherein the ... - Google Books


----------



## Wayne (Jan 2, 2011)

My copy of Ridgely isn't here at home (big mistake!), but here is Thomas Watson commenting on the Seventh Commandment (Banner of Truth, 2d reprint, 1962, pp. 118-119):



> Q. How may we abstain from this sin?
> 
> A. ...10. Take heed of excess in diet. When gluttony and drunkenness lead the van, chambering and wantonness bring up the rear. _Vinum fomentum libidinis_; any wine inflames lust; and fulness of bread is made the cause of Sodom's uncleanness. Ezek. xvi. 49. The rankest weeds grow out of the fattest soil. Uncleanness proceeds from excess, *"When they were fed to the full, every one neighed after his neighbor's wife." Jer. v. 8*. Get the "golden bridle of temperance." God allows recruits of nature, and what may fit us the better for his service; but beware of surfeit. Excess in the creature clouds the mind, chokes good affections, and provokes lust. Paul did "keep under his body." I Cor. ix. 27. The flesh pampered is apt to rebel. _Corpus impinguatum recalcitrat_.
> 
> A. 11. Take heed of idleness. When a man is out of a calling, he is ready to receive any temptation. We do not sow seed in fallow-ground; but the devil sows most seed of temptation in such as lie fallow. Idleness is the cause of sodomy and uncleanness. Ezek. xvi. 49. When David was idle on the top of his house, he espied Bathsheba, and took her to him. 2 Sam. xi. 4. Hierom gave his friend counsel to be always well employed in temptation.


----------



## Michael (Jan 2, 2011)

Thank you all for your input so far.

Richard, that was a most helpful description.


----------

