# He/She's a Legalist



## blhowes (Jun 11, 2007)

Have you ever noticed that whenever the term 'legalist' is used, its usually one person referring to another person, as in, "That guy/gal is a legalist because xyz...". I think we'd be hard-pressed, though, to find somebody who'd answer in the affirmative to the question, "Are you a legalist?" Its always the other guy/gal.

1. If you've ever referred to somebody as a legalist, what criteria did you use?
2. How can you tell if somebody is a legalist or not? Can you?
3. How do you discern if you yourself are a legalist?


----------



## BobVigneault (Jun 11, 2007)

A legalist is one who puts sanctification before or right beside justification. A legalist is one who promotes works/merit as a basis for salvation and condemns everyone who doesn't agree with their system.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 11, 2007)

ie: A roman Catholic for example


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jun 11, 2007)

a legalist is one who develops their on criteria for righteousness and judges others by it.

Example of a legalist. Person A is a christian who had an alcoholic father. Person A then decides to forgo all alcoholic consumption. Person B is a christian who engages in moderate alcohol consumption, Person A, then decides that Person B is sinning and might not be a christian because he or she engages in alcohol consumption. Person A is therefore a legalist.

Example of a non legalist. Person A studies the Bible diligently and as a result walks and strives to walk in obedience to God. Person A keeps the Sabbath Holy and does not believe in cursing and hanging out with unbelievers. Person B is a young christian and every now and again, lets ammonia fly from his mouth. Since being a young christian, Person B still hangs out with unbelieving friends and also uses the Sabbath as a regular day to hang out with unbelieving friends at the sportsbar after church. Person A confronts Person B, and Person B replies by saying Person A is a legalist and that Jesus hung out with prostitutes and publicans. Person A is not a legalist and Person B has warped theology in addition to being immature spiritually.


----------



## Davidius (Jun 11, 2007)

Yes, for some people legalism is taking the bible seriously and spending time studying it to understand what it says and apply it to one's life.


----------



## Scott (Jun 11, 2007)

Legalist (common usage): Someone who says the Bible prohibits something I want to do.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 11, 2007)

I was called a legalist once because I attempted to handle a matter according the Book of Church Order.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jun 11, 2007)

I'm just a lab tech and not a theologian by any stretch of the immagination. Consequently my definition of a legalist is very simple. Legalist= One who trusts works and not Christ alone for salvation.


----------



## jenney (Jun 11, 2007)

1) (I don't know if I've ever actually called someone a legalist, but this is what I'd mean if I said it) I define legalism as seeing our works as meritorious in the sight of God.

Usually people seem to mean anything that someone thinks is a command that the name-caller doesn't think is a command. But I don't see that in Scripture. We do have different convictions. Paul tells us how to deal with those differences.

Legalism, however, is strictly condemned by the entire book of Galatians.

2) So how do I discern? Well, if the person says that we can add to our salvation by obedience, then I call it legalism. I would be careful calling labeling it legalism without him/her stating that the behavior adds merit somehow. I wouldn't just call it legalism if a person said that all Christians have to be/do some such thing. I might say they are binding the conscience in an area where i see liberty. But that's not legalism in itself.

3) How to discern in myself? WooHoo, you must know me! I generally totter from legalist to antinomian hourly! But I do constantly have to ask why I sometimes feel a twinge of conscience when I'm doing what I believe the Bible teaches. Often it is because inside somewhere I'm thinking I'm more righteous than someone else because of my obedience in this area or that. I'm doing the right thing, but I'm doing it like a pharisee, relying on it to earn merit with the Lord. It is a heart issue. And I have to ask the Lord to search my heart and show me if there is any wrong way in me.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 11, 2007)

Slippery said:


> a legalist is one who develops their on criteria for righteousness and judges others by it.
> 
> Example of a legalist. Person A is a christian who had an alcoholic father. Person A then decides to forgo all alcoholic consumption. Person B is a christian who engages in moderate alcohol consumption, Person A, then decides that Person B is sinning and might not be a christian because he or she engages in alcohol consumption. Person A is therefore a legalist.
> 
> Example of a non legalist. Person A studies the Bible diligently and as a result walks and strives to walk in obedience to God. Person A keeps the Sabbath Holy and does not believe in cursing and hanging out with unbelievers. Person B is a young christian and every now and again, lets ammonia fly from his mouth. Since being a young christian, Person B still hangs out with unbelieving friends and also uses the Sabbath as a regular day to hang out with unbelieving friends at the sportsbar after church. *Person A, then decides that Person B is sinning and might not be a christian because he or she doesn't keep the Sabbath.* Person A confronts Person B, and Person B replies by saying Person A is a legalist and that Jesus hung out with prostitutes and publicans. Person A is not a legalist and Person B has warped theology in addition to being immature spiritually.


Adding the bolded sentence (to make the 2 examples track) to the 2nd example doesn't change anything, correct? Person A is judgemental, but not legalistic?


----------



## elnwood (Jun 11, 2007)

Slippery said:


> a legalist is one who develops their on criteria for righteousness and judges others by it.
> 
> Example of a legalist. Person A is a christian who had an alcoholic father. Person A then decides to forgo all alcoholic consumption. Person B is a christian who engages in moderate alcohol consumption, Person A, then decides that Person B is sinning and might not be a christian because he or she engages in alcohol consumption. Person A is therefore a legalist.
> 
> Example of a non legalist. Person A studies the Bible diligently and as a result walks and strives to walk in obedience to God. Person A keeps the Sabbath Holy and does not believe in cursing and hanging out with unbelievers. Person B is a young christian and every now and again, lets ammonia fly from his mouth. Since being a young christian, Person B still hangs out with unbelieving friends and also uses the Sabbath as a regular day to hang out with unbelieving friends at the sportsbar after church. Person A confronts Person B, and Person B replies by saying Person A is a legalist and that Jesus hung out with prostitutes and publicans. Person A is not a legalist and Person B has warped theology in addition to being immature spiritually.



A tangential question. I understand that Sabbatarianism teaches that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath in the same way Saturday was the Sabbath in the Old Testament. I understand that the Sabbath in the Old Testament was resting from work and employment as described in the Decalogue.

What I don't understand is how Sabbath observance became abstaining from "worldly recreations" (WCF), i.e. watching television, or playing sports that are otherwise lawful. Can someone explain to me the biblical justification for this?


----------



## blhowes (Jun 11, 2007)

elnwood said:


> What I don't understand is how Sabbath observance became abstaining from "worldly recreations" (WCF), i.e. watching television, or playing sports that are otherwise lawful. Can someone explain to me the biblical justification for this?



Isa 58:13 "If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; 

Isa 58:14 then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."


----------



## Romans922 (Jun 11, 2007)

houseparent said:


> ie: A roman Catholic for example



No, No... you mean FV right? Oh wait, same thing.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 11, 2007)

1.	If you've ever referred to somebody as a legalist, what criteria did you use?

See answer below. The term “criteria” betrays a reality that it cannot discern legalism at all. Legalism cannot be discerned by criteria for that begets another legalism. You must know the principle that can come in under ANY guise, any category, the essential nature and principle behind legalism and NOT a criteria. Criteria will always blind you to legalism by its very nature. It’s much harder and deeper than a simple criteria, PRINCPLE, is what you need to go for. It’s the principle, yeast, of legalism you must what out for. We all must beware of that.

2. How can you tell if somebody is a legalist or not? Can you?

Sometimes, depends, it takes great care (and I cannot claim to be good at it either!). Also, see below. It can be complicated and takes time, it’s not as simple as rank Mormonism.

3. How do you discern if you yourself are a legalist?

You cannot when you are in the midst of it, it is sufficient to say that ALL of us have a legalism or legalist within us to be aware of. Why so? Because we are sinners and legalism is the heart beat of the sinner. Ultimately legalism and antinomianism are two sides of the same coin. It’s the very essence of the fall, that inward curving to self. Are you fallen and by nature a sinner? Then you are a legalist point blank. The very nature of “self righteousness”, which is just another way of saying unrighteous is legalism. When I’m in it myself, I don’t see it. It’s usually much later, after the fact.

To the whole issue:

We can make ANYTHING a legalism, even that which is suppose to be grace or Gospel. We can make prayer a legalism, bible study a legalism, Christian things a legalism, etc… Puritan Thomas Hooker sets forth a very stunning test of the heart for the religious person, and he speaks to Christians not those outside the pale. He very astutely warns beware of the deep deep deception of the human heart. Like Luther he understood well that the human heart only seeks out good works religiously and at that only the best ones before us. It’s not the work itself that is the problem but the wicked trust toward that one puts into that work. Hooker says (paraphrasing from memory) take you BEST work, the BEST, prayer, going to services, biblical study, church duties, great sacrifice, evangelism, missions, the BEST for only the best will test the hearts deception, you’ll NEVER see it with some trivial work (again its not the work itself but the deceived heart) – and the next time you feel you must do it, don’t. It takes quite a push to test this, no trifle will do. And you must do this such that, long enough, sustained enough, that you will actually feel your hearts itching and longing towards it. Note this well within. Then when you finally ‘cave in’ and do it, note the relief it gives. Then you will know that your heart is deceived not by substandard works, but the very best, for herein it truly reveals its secret yet deadly trust, hope and assurance and it’s not Christ crucified alone. EVEN if you confess justification by faith alone. For what we are testing here is not a confession that any parrot can repeat or person publicly can affirm before the ears of men, but the nature of a thing. Analogy: We are not testing a fish confessing “fishism alone” or a fish saying “I must do fish stuff to be a fish. We are testing the nature of a thing, if it is FIRST by nature a fish not another nature doing the duties attributed to a fish. Thus, this is not yet “another doctrine” to be affirmed, yea or nea, but the explanation of the nature of a thing. 

That’s crucial to understand for “legalism”, works of all hidden kind, by its nature breaks a thing down into a numerated duty to do. The believer, naked truster in Christ alone, does not, he/she just does.

Take ‘good works’ in general for example. Jesus said not even a cold cup of water will fail to be recognized. What was the Lord’s point? Cold cups of water are works of merit and things that alone are pleasing to God? No. Rather that faith alone in Christ alone, our sin to Him and His righteousness to us, nakedly and passively saves man and nothing else. And the true living saving faith that so rests, even if it does nothing more than give a cold cup of water, sweeps a floor, washes dishes, etc… all general callings to serve neighbor will be recognized. Why? Because faith disregards the kind or type of work, does not ‘enumerate’ it and just does what is before it to do to serve neighbor (the ENTIRE point of the second part of all the Law), high or low, great or small, secular or sacred. Saving faith manifests itself in that it does not distinguish between a “high” and “good” looking churchy work and a “low” mundane looking ordinary work. It does not regard one greater and one lesser, all things to faith are good for faith says, God does not need my works, nor do I since Christ alone is my righteousness, ergo, I give all my good works to my neighbor, they are nothing to me, great or small…it, saving faith, simply rests, as faith implies, in another, Christ alone, and does what is set before it simply for another, the neighbor. This is how saving faith is resting in Christ alone and simultaneously very busy and never resting for it cannot help but to do all things great or small as it is before it and it is satisfied with all it does. False faith is always searching for and enumerating the “best” work and work list to do, and actually eventually simultaneously manifests itself in hatred for another in some form or another (e.g. a church group begins weighing others not so good works against their great and wonderful works, so they imagine). Here, false faith has become legalism, even doing otherwise “good things”. But saving faith rests in Christ alone and by its very living natural nature, like the fish, works unburdened as work. Opposing this is false faith that never rests, though it may claim justification by faith alone, but is rather busy doing for itself, for God, for holiness or for sanctification, assurance, etc… and paradoxically all that it does is doing nothing whatsoever.

Thus, saving faith does not just show up during the “high times” and during the “great looking works” and during the great disasters of need. True saving faith does not darken the doorway of people’s lives ONLY in great time of need or at the time of great church yard works such as bible study, evangelism and missions (again its not the works but the hearts deception toward them, big difference, do the test!). If one shows up mostly there one can be sure it’s unbelief and not faith at all. Saving faith condescends to any need and shows up in the mundane everyday-less than extraordinary times of life. The often dull and tediousness of everyday living is where true saving faith most often daily shows up, as well as the others as it has resources to do so. Saving faith shows up with a cup of sugar for the neighbor, false faith shows up mostly at the latest bible study then condescendingly cuts at those who cannot (an otherwise good thing TURNED legal). Saving faith shows up when the dishes are dirty, at the stove when the meal is needed prepared, with the mower when the grass needs cut, at the dirty diaper, wiping the dirty nose, at work in one’s formal calling of God to serve the neighbor in the mundane to teach, to serve food at McDonald’s, to run a cash register at Walmart, to drive a truck, to be a policeman, etc…. False faith (legalism) shows up always and mostly on the church grounds when a big conference is in town, in evangelism campaigns and mission trips and would fall apart if it didn’t. The later are not wrong but indeed right and called to do, but we must be keenly aware of how our wicked fallen hearts will be deceived by the finest of works, not the “lesser” as the fallen heart weighs works (legalism not only enumerates things, it weighs them, that is another signature nature of legalism). What is being presented here is the problem of the fallen human heart, not the work itself. In the mundane, as well as the “greater”, so to speak, offices is where saving faith glorifies God, in the nothingness of life – just as the Cross of Christ appeared to be shame, nothing and the foresakenness of God, yet paradoxically there was God on the Cross for us. Saving faith glories in NO work, great or small. 

Here saving faith gives the answer to, “What is the hope (certain expectation) that you have” to the world. To wit: “How can you expect to go to heaven having done so little and rather ordinary works?” Answer: Christ alone is my certain expectation (hope). That is to be able to “give an answer when asked”. We see that the question, “what is the hope that you have”, will hardly be asked of someone who has done perceived great works. Rather fallen man says of the outwardly appearing great saint, such as an outwardly perceived great evangelist or doctor to the poor, “Surely these great works mean you will and show evidence you’ve been saved/regenerated and be in heaven”. This is delusion and false faith. Saving faith eschews the weighing, for example, of evangelism Vs. sweeping the floor. Faith EASILY does either one without regard to either one. How is this so? For only TRUE saving faith is SO locked into the righteousness of Christ FOR it, it is not disturbed by the work it is doing or not doing, great or small, much or little, secular or sacred, church or earthly. Saving faith cares not one wit whether it does “good works” or not but is satisfied in that it suffers by naked trust, its passion like Christ on the Cross, so that in the suffering it can be brought lower so as to cling more to the Cross of Christ and Christ satisfaction is exalted. This saving faith, then, naturally produces ‘good works’ though it never tries to do so – for humility, the heart of saving faith works even the smallest work to the glory of God so resting in Christ alone. It is, again, like a fish by nature that swims, it need not be commanded to swim or else. ONLY true saving faith can actually DO THIS without worry, that is begin to truly altruistically love the neighbor. Why? The answer of faith is a resounding “Christ alone!” As Luther said, “If you are doing a work FOR God, or FOR holiness, or FOR yourself (even if it is outwardly done to/for another), you can be most certain of one thing, it is not a good work at all.” No matter WHAT it is. This is why Jesus said, “many will come to me on that day (of judgment) and say, ‘Lord did we not do this and that in your name’, and I will say to them, ‘depart from me you doers of iniquity’” Conversely, “many will come to me on that day and say, ‘when did do anything for you’, and I will say to them, ‘in as much as you did for the least of these, you did it for me.”

In Christ,

Ldh


----------



## Iconoclast (Jun 11, 2007)

*in true bounds of christian freedom,*

Samuel Bolton in his book contrasted a legal obediance as against a gospel obediance. The legal obediance seeks to set up a standard that he can easily attain to. Rules that if kept in the flesh give a false sense of well being.

The gospel obediance seeks the commands of scripture and lets one know that we are wholly dependant on the grace of God to perform that which we are called to do.


----------



## Davidius (Jun 12, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> THe common way many people use the term LEGALIST is towards a person who adds on extra laws besides that which is commanded in Scripture. Under this common definition, there are many such folks - and many such reformed folks.
> 
> Most folks who are called LEGALIST do not claim to be saved by these things hwoever. They merely see these added on items as essential for the Christian to do.
> 
> The other definition of legalist is more technically accurate, but the one I give above is the one most people hold to in their minds.



I think this is a good, succinct answer.


----------

