What does the term "Legalism" mean precisely?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Junior
Perhaps there will be many opinions on this, but I have always thought that "legalism" meant trying to establish your own righteousness by means of the law--in other words, to try and merit your salvation by careful law-keeping, like the Pharisees did.
However, I seem to see the term applied as if it meant "to keep the law more carefully than I would bother to."
Is it legalism to carefully keep to the Law out of duty and love to God? (even if we err on the side of caution in order not to offend, by which I mean we abstain from legitimate things in fear they will cause us to stumble). Or is it legalism only to trust that we're righteous because we behave righteously?
Hope my question is clear. I can clarify if necessary
 
It has more than one use. Turning ones own personal wise precautions and hedges into a law for others is a common legalism.
 
Anything tighter than what I believe is legalism and anything looser than my own beliefs are libertinism.

That is how it plays out practically for most people, anyway.
 
One way I use the term 'legalism' is the desire to bind the conscience of others to do something that is not commanded in Scripture or forbid something that is not forbidden in Scripture. By this definition, obeying God's commandments would not be a form of legalism.

Another way of using legalism is as you said, Ben, where you attempt to attain salvation or secure your own justification through your own righteousness. By this definition, obeying God's commandments would be a form of legalism because none of the law-keeping is performed through faith in Christ.

I thought this Ligonier article did a decent job explaining various forms of legalism.
 
Thank you all for the responses. It seems, then, (and the Ligonier link agrees), that there's not one tidy definition of "Legalism." It's too bad, because when some would accuse me of legalism because of my Sabbath keeping or musical convictions, I might actually have to admit that I'm a legalist--by their standard. But I'm not trying to bind their consciences by what I do--I'm simply trying to keep a good conscience before God.
Perhaps we should invent different terms for the different sorts of legalism, or call them L1, L2, and L3.....
Am I a legalist because I hate imprecision in language?
 
But I'm not trying to bind their consciences by what I do--I'm simply trying to keep a good conscience before God.

Now let us think about what you wrote here. :) Sometimes the standard is a law or principle (RPW) of God, and of course we should try to bind the conscience of those who break such. Or better yet we should try to free the conscience, instead of "bind" it for the ones we love.
 
Legalism is a trusting that your own works produces salvation as opposed to faith producing action. This is not to be confused with striving to be holy as a believer who trusts in the cross, however, its a slippery slop because some feel they trust in Christ when they trust in themselves.

EDIT: In reference to the definition below.... All too often you see Christians focus on specific sins of an individual ignoring the spiritual aspects and root causes of sin. "I would never do that" is a phrase used by folks in that they believe they are not capable of doing something so terrible. Without God's grace and mercy we are all equally lost and all of our hearts are corrupted. Understanding this is understanding how far away from God we really are in Holiness and Righteousness and how desperately we need him and rely on him.

Legalism (Dictionary of Bible Themes):

The belief that salvation demands or depends upon total obedience to the letter of the law. Examples of legalism include an excessive concern for minute details of the law coupled with a neglect of its fundamental concerns, and a preoccupation with human legal traditions.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps there will be many opinions on this, but I have always thought that "legalism" meant trying to establish your own righteousness by means of the law--in other words, to try and merit your salvation by careful law-keeping, like the Pharisees did.
However, I seem to see the term applied as if it meant "to keep the law more carefully than I would bother to."
Is it legalism to carefully keep to the Law out of duty and love to God? (even if we err on the side of caution in order not to offend, by which I mean we abstain from legitimate things in fear they will cause us to stumble). Or is it legalism only to trust that we're righteous because we behave righteously?
Hope my question is clear. I can clarify if necessary
I think that legalism can refer to one trying to reconcile back to God by their own efforts, by being keeper of the Law of God. It also refers to me to those who seek to impose their own preferences and convictions on all Christians as requirements in order to have a right standing with God.
 
Ben, I agree with you in not liking the fact that there are multiple meanings. If I were able to dictate how people may and may not use words, I would forbid using legalism to describe how people impose laws (either on themselves or on others) that go beyond what God commands, especially if it is because they misread or misapply the law.

To call that "legalism" gets confusing because it can be quite different, at the heart level, from the sort of legalism where you trust in your good works for your salvation.

However, while limiting legalism to that use, I would also expand the meaning to include functional legalism. There are few technical legalists in the Reformed and evangelical world: most well-taught people, if you asked them, would affirm that we are saved by faith in Christ rather than by our works. But there are many functional legalists. Although we know better, we still feel as if our salvation depends on reaching a certain level of holiness, and we relate to God largely by attempting to prove how good we can be. Or we emphasize law-keeping and our correct understanding of the law to such an extent that the law-keeping of Christ on our behalf is practically ignored. This functional legalism is, I believe, the kind of legalism we most need to watch out for.

NOTE: We could apply much of the same thinking to antinomianism. There are few technical antinomians among us, but plenty of functional antinomians. (In fact, I veer off into both functional legalism and functional antinomianism at various times.) And a person who is attempting to keep God's law but neglects part of it due to misunderstanding should be called something other than antinomian, since that is a different sort of problem. Sadly, though, I can't make people follow my word-usage rules.
 
The Northampton Press title "Law and Liberty: A Biblical Look at Legalism" was written precisely to address this question. Chapters by John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Steve Lawson, Joel Beeke, and others.
 
Ben, I agree with you in not liking the fact that there are multiple meanings. If I were able to dictate how people may and may not use words, I would forbid using legalism to describe how people impose laws (either on themselves or on others) that go beyond what God commands, especially if it is because they misread or misapply the law.

To call that "legalism" gets confusing because it can be quite different, at the heart level, from the sort of legalism where you trust in your good works for your salvation.

However, while limiting legalism to that use, I would also expand the meaning to include functional legalism. There are few technical legalists in the Reformed and evangelical world: most well-taught people, if you asked them, would affirm that we are saved by faith in Christ rather than by our works. But there are many functional legalists. Although we know better, we still feel as if our salvation depends on reaching a certain level of holiness, and we relate to God largely by attempting to prove how good we can be. Or we emphasize law-keeping and our correct understanding of the law to such an extent that the law-keeping of Christ on our behalf is practically ignored. This functional legalism is, I believe, the kind of legalism we most need to watch out for.

NOTE: We could apply much of the same thinking to antinomianism. There are few technical antinomians among us, but plenty of functional antinomians. (In fact, I veer off into both functional legalism and functional antinomianism at various times.) And a person who is attempting to keep God's law but neglects part of it due to misunderstanding should be called something other than antinomian, since that is a different sort of problem. Sadly, though, I can't make people follow my word-usage rules.
I have found that a practical way to define legalism would be when my preferences and convictions as to how to live for God get extending to how all Chrsitians should be living now for Him.
 
Ben, I appreciate your question because it gives me a chance to refresh myself in the Gospel.

Ferguson in “The Whole Christ” puts legalism in another light: it separates the Law from the character of the lawgiver. We know and understand the Law, but when we consider the Law apart from the gracious character of the Lawgiver—or we don’t believe the Lawgiver is good—we are left with bare Law itself with its impersonal demands, and our perception is distorted, and the Law becomes burdensome. God then becomes the hard-to-please Lawgiver, and we obey begrudgingly, or we disobey. Legalism and the resultant disobedience begins with what we think of God Himself, or what we really believe about His work.

My question: would we ever call Adam and Eve legalists? After all, their happiness depended on their obedience. However, to say they were in a legal covenant, or they were legalists because they believed in salvation by works, robs God of His goodness in the covenant in the Garden (one reason I find myself preferring to call it the Covenant of Life as opposed to the Covenant of Works). Legalism has bare Law at the center, but God was central to Adam. God puts a covenant in place to bind Himself to Adam and Eve and their children that so long as they never sinned, their enjoyment of God would continue forever. Outside of that covenant, God has no obligation to keep them alive. To reasonable and upright beings it was a great deal—obey and live forever, and they were perfectly happy with that. Yet we’d never even begin to think the character of a legalist fit Adam before falling, and to stamp the word “legalistic” on this arrangement feels wrong.

There is much in how they saw God before and after they were tempted. A legalistic man thinks hard thoughts of God, but Adam and Eve had none before the temptation, even if they and the legalist have a similar view on how to be saved. Beforehand, God was good in Eve’s eyes. Afterward, He was a selfish miser with His glory. At that moment God was just the Lawgiver, and not a gracious benefactor, and His Law became unreasonable and hard to be borne. At that moment she looks like our conception of a legalist. The Covenant didn’t change—just how she saw God.
 
Last edited:
Now let us think about what you wrote here. :) Sometimes the standard is a law or principle (RPW) of God, and of course we should try to bind the conscience of those who break such. Or better yet we should try to free the conscience, instead of "bind" it for the ones we love.
Granted, we should exhort one another to love and good works--to keeping God's law. But my point was that when I avoid a particular TV show, event, or publication for the sake of my conscience, I'm not telling my brethren that it is a sin for THEM to indulge in that. A thing otherwise indifferent that would be an occasion of stumbling to me, may not be for them.
 
The Northampton Press title "Law and Liberty: A Biblical Look at Legalism" was written precisely to address this question. Chapters by John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Steve Lawson, Joel Beeke, and others.
With the utmost charity, I have to point out that the first three people named are by their own testimony antinomians--being Dispensationalists, they believe the Law was abrogated. So they can't really discuss the law in any meaningful way.
 
With the utmost charity, I have to point out that the first three people named are by their own testimony antinomians--being Dispensationalists, they believe the Law was abrogated. So they can't really discuss the law in any meaningful way.
Dr Macarthur is known for being maybe the Lordship salvation pastor, so would think that he would see obeying God from the scriptures as being very important.
 
With the utmost charity, I have to point out that the first three people named are by their own testimony antinomians--being Dispensationalists, they believe the Law was abrogated. So they can't really discuss the law in any meaningful way.

Dr Macarthur is known for being maybe the Lordship salvation pastor, so would think that he would see obeying God from the scriptures as being very important.

This actually demonstrates the problem I mentioned. Ben uses one definition for antinomian ("believing the Old Testament Law was abrogated") while David uses another definition ("believing it is unnecessary or of little importance to obey God").

Those are two different things. So, the word antinomian requires further explanation, as Ben and David both gave, in order to understand what is meant.

Both uses of the word have an established history, so it's hard to complain too loudly about either use. Still, I prefer not to label MacArthur an antinomian because it might paint him as a no-need-to-obey-God sort of antinomian in the minds of many who read that statement, which is unfair to MacArthur. Especially in the case of accusatory words such as antinomian or legalist, we must take care not to use labels which might sully a brother's good name in ways that are undeserved—even if by one definition the label is accurate.

This means that if I encounter a fellow who is trying to obey God in ways that go beyond what the law actually requires (as mentioned in the opening post), I'm NOT going to call that guy a legalist. I won't use that word, because I don't want anyone to think I'm accusing him of trusting in his works for salvation. There's a good chance someone would take it that way, and that would be unfair, since that is not part the guy's error.

A good rule of thumb is to use the least inflammatory words that still accurately and sharply describe a brother's error, and to avoid slinging labels that might be understood in ways that are untrue.
 
Ben, I appreciate your question because it gives me a chance to refresh myself in the Gospel.

Ferguson in “The Whole Christ” puts legalism in another light: it separates the Law from the character of the lawgiver. We know and understand the Law, but when we consider the Law apart from the gracious character of the Lawgiver—or we don’t believe the Lawgiver is good—we are left with bare Law itself with its impersonal demands, and our perception is distorted, and the Law becomes burdensome. God then becomes the hard-to-please Lawgiver, and we obey begrudgingly, or we disobey. Legalism and the resultant disobedience begins with what we think of God Himself, or what we really believe about His work.

My question: would we ever call Adam and Eve legalists? After all, their happiness depended on their obedience. However, to say they were in a legal covenant, or they were legalists because they believed in salvation by works, robs God of His goodness in the covenant in the Garden (one reason I find myself preferring to call it the Covenant of Life as opposed to the Covenant of Works). Legalism has bare Law at the center, but God was central to Adam. God puts a covenant in place to bind Himself to Adam and Eve and their children that so long as they never sinned, their enjoyment of God would continue forever. Outside of that covenant, God has no obligation to keep them alive. To reasonable and upright beings it was a great deal—obey and live forever, and they were perfectly happy with that. Yet we’d never even begin to think the character of a legalist fit Adam before falling, and to stamp the word “legalistic” on this arrangement feels wrong.

There is much in how they saw God before and after they were tempted. A legalistic man thinks hard thoughts of God, but Adam and Eve had none before the temptation, even if they and the legalist have a similar view on how to be saved. Beforehand, God was good in Eve’s eyes. Afterward, He was a selfish miser with His glory. At that moment God was just the Lawgiver, and not a gracious benefactor, and His Law became unreasonable and hard to be borne. At that moment she looks like our conception of a legalist. The Covenant didn’t change—just how she saw God.
This actually demonstrates the problem I mentioned. Ben uses one definition for antinomian ("believing the Old Testament Law was abrogated") while David uses another definition ("believing it is unnecessary or of little importance to obey God").

Those are two different things. So, the word antinomian requires further explanation, as Ben and David both gave, in order to understand what is meant.

Both uses of the word have an established history, so it's hard to complain too loudly about either use. Still, I prefer not to label MacArthur an antinomian because it might paint him as a no-need-to-obey-God sort of antinomian in the minds of many who read that statement, which is unfair to MacArthur. Especially in the case of accusatory words such as antinomian or legalist, we must take care not to use labels which might sully a brother's good name in ways that are undeserved—even if by one definition the label is accurate.

This means that if I encounter a fellow who is trying to obey God in ways that go beyond what the law actually requires (as mentioned in the opening post), I'm NOT going to call that guy a legalist. I won't use that word, because I don't want anyone to think I'm accusing him of trusting in his works for salvation. There's a good chance someone would take it that way, and that would be unfair, since that is not part the guy's error.

A good rule of thumb is to use the least inflammatory words that still accurately and sharply describe a brother's error, and to avoid slinging labels that might be understood in ways that are untrue.
Based upon my understanding of what Dr MacArthur holds to regarding the OT law and its application for us today under the NC, I do not see him as saying that we are no longer under the moral aspects of it. He is very strong on the truth of living our lives in a way that reflects that we are really now saved, so doubt that he would be advocating we now can live as we want after being saved.
 
Antisabbatarian would be the term I would use rather than antinomian. But it goes without saying that if you reject the abiding nature of the fourth commandment you by consequence are practical antinomians in regard to it.
A good rule of thumb is to use the least inflammatory words that still accurately and sharply describe a brother's error, and to avoid slinging labels that might be understood in ways that are untrue.
 
Dr Macarthur is known for being maybe the Lordship salvation pastor, so would think that he would see obeying God from the scriptures as being very important.
This is perhaps a topic for another place, but David, surely you understand by now the difference between the Reformed view of what God's law is for today vs the dispensationalist's idea of it. No dispensationalist will say that we need not obey God--they're just confused about which of God's laws continue in force.
 
This actually demonstrates the problem I mentioned. Ben uses one definition for antinomian ("believing the Old Testament Law was abrogated") while David uses another definition ("believing it is unnecessary or of little importance to obey God").

Those are two different things. So, the word antinomian requires further explanation, as Ben and David both gave, in order to understand what is meant.

Both uses of the word have an established history, so it's hard to complain too loudly about either use. Still, I prefer not to label MacArthur an antinomian because it might paint him as a no-need-to-obey-God sort of antinomian in the minds of many who read that statement, which is unfair to MacArthur. Especially in the case of accusatory words such as antinomian or legalist, we must take care not to use labels which might sully a brother's good name in ways that are undeserved—even if by one definition the label is accurate.

This means that if I encounter a fellow who is trying to obey God in ways that go beyond what the law actually requires (as mentioned in the opening post), I'm NOT going to call that guy a legalist. I won't use that word, because I don't want anyone to think I'm accusing him of trusting in his works for salvation. There's a good chance someone would take it that way, and that would be unfair, since that is not part the guy's error.

A good rule of thumb is to use the least inflammatory words that still accurately and sharply describe a brother's error, and to avoid slinging labels that might be understood in ways that are untrue.
Just to be clear, I used the term antinomian in the technical sense, not as a perjorative. It seems the most precise term to accurately and sharply describe the brothers' error. If there is a more charitable term to apply which is still precise, I will be glad to apply it. But the point remains that legalism is perhaps not competently discussed by people who have decidedly un-reformed views of God's law.
 
This is perhaps a topic for another place, but David, surely you understand by now the difference between the Reformed view of what God's law is for today vs the dispensationalist's idea of it. No dispensationalist will say that we need not obey God--they're just confused about which of God's laws continue in force.
I do know the difference between how those two groups see the relationship between Christians and the Law of God, but have rarely met any Christian who was along lines of Dr MacArthue who actually advocated that a christian can live in a sinful way after salvation and still be right with God.
 
I do know the difference between how those two groups see the relationship between Christians and the Law of God, but have rarely met any Christian who was along lines of Dr MacArthue who actually advocated that a christian can live in a sinful way after salvation and still be right with God.
David,

You may be missing Ben’s point. I think Ben is trying to simply say that John McArthur May not be the best source to go to regarding legalism from a reformed perspective because he is not reformed, but rather dispensational leaning.
 
Just to be clear, I used the term antinomian in the technical sense, not as a perjorative. It seems the most precise term to accurately and sharply describe the brothers' error. If there is a more charitable term to apply which is still precise, I will be glad to apply it. But the point remains that legalism is perhaps not competently discussed by people who have decidedly un-reformed views of God's law.
The Pharisees modeled for us just as Jesus defined what legalism meant, as they were those whose idea of being right with God consisted of maing sure they were seen as being law keepers so well that God saved them due to their own self righteous behavior.
 
David,

You may be missing Ben’s point. I think Ben is trying to simply say that John McArthur May not be the best source to go to regarding legalism from a reformed perspective because he is not reformed, but rather dispensational leaning.
Thanks for this clarrification, as I thought that he meant that those thinking along the lines of Dr MacArthur would not be seeing that Christians have to observe a moral law.
 
Thanks for this clarrification, as I thought that he meant that those thinking along the lines of Dr MacArthur would not be seeing that Christians have to observe a moral law.
It is more complicated than that. Generally speaking, dispensationals do not view the “moral law” the same way the reformed do. For the sake of the OP topic, I will not get into that here.
 
It is more complicated than that. Generally speaking, dispensationals do not view the “moral law” the same way the reformed do. For the sake of the OP topic, I will not get into that here.
I was just suggesting that someone who is really against keeping any kind or moral code would be neither under Reformed or Dispensational grouping, but something else. I would tend to see them more under extreme OSAS, whose concept is that saved by grace meant freed to not worry about lifestyle and decisions at all .
 
Am I a legalist because I hate imprecision in language?

Haha, I am sure many of the members of this board can empathize with your aversion to imprecision!

If we are patient, quick to listen and understand / slow to speak and pontificate, we will be successful in spreading our attitude clear and precise reasoning and communication among our brothers and sisters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top