Legalism: Part One--Introduction, Christian Blog, Christian Blogs, ChristianBlog.Com

Home

About

Join For Free

Discussions | Groups | Series | Recent Blogs | Random Blog

Rules for Christian Radicals

A Promotional Blog by clifrad

God Has Called Those With Nothing To Have Everything In Christ

In spite of our apparant lack of worldly credentials, we have everything in Christ

blessings2you published this sponsored blog

Legalism: Part One--Introduction

I can think of no other word that so quickly divides Christians than the word "legalism". People on all sides of the issue are very sensitive and also very passionate. Equally great people hold totally opposite positions on this topic. I have personally been in meetings and conferences where all was going smoothly until this word was brought up by someone. Suddenly, as if it someone had dropped a bomb in the room, people would yell and scream and make threats to others. These were Christian leaders not unbelieving politicians. It is indeed with great trepidation that I approach this subject.

The actual word "legalism" is not used in the Bible. So, from one perspective, we could cast it aside and not even bother discussing it. But, other equally profound words such as "trinity" are not in the Bible either. A word not found in the Bible enters a difficult sphere of theology and upon entering that sphere, danger signs abound. Terms such as "legalism" are especially dangerous for a number of reasons.

I get very frustrated attempting to read what others have written on this subject. The views presented are ultra polarizing and for the most part grossly unfair in their presentation. Particular branches of Christianity are singled out and proclaimed to be guilty of "legalism. This type of attitude is totally unacceptable in trying to objectively and honestly look into this term. Finger pointing and making wild claims about what and how a group believes does not promote unity but rather produces only schisms within the Body of Christ.

Since "legalism" is not used in the Bible, the only way to define it is through the Dictionary. According to Webster's College Dictionary, legalism is defined as: Strict adherence to law or prescription, esp. to the letter rather than the spirit. This is certainly one aspect of "legalism" and one which must be addressed in a future post. The second definition of the word is the source of all the tension and confusion: The theological doctrine that salvation is gained through good works.

If this subject were as easy to clarify as many Christians believe, then there would be no arguments, splits and schisms over it. If this subject were as cut and dry as many want to make it, then the arguments would be limited to yea and nay only. But, there are difficult verses and many apparent contradictory statements in the New Testament that must be resolved to arrive at a logical conclusion.

Doctors of Theology have argued over these things for hundreds of years. Denominations have argued over these things for hundreds of years. The resulting schisms and divisions have done more to splinter Protestant Christianity than any other issue. There is no possible way for any one person to settle a raging theological debate that has caused denominational splits, church splits and even wars. Yet, everyone who has formed an opinion on these issues thinks they are right.

The crux of the issue revolves around whether salvation is a onetime gift with no strings attached and good works spring from the greatness of all given in the new birth or whether salvation is a gift by grace that must be backed up with good works in order to maintain or keep. Entrance to heaven is either gained by good works as implied in Matthew, Mark and Luke; or it is gained by "faith" as implied in John and Paul's writings. Ultimately, one's position on these matters comes down to one's position regarding the authority of Paul's writings.

If one believes that whatever Paul said about a subject supersedes anything else, then the resulting beliefs will of necessity be "dispensational". If one believes that Jesus' words should take precedence over any other, then the ensuing beliefs will be quite different than those of a dispensationalist. If one believes that everything written after the Day of Pentecost represents the "handbook" for the current administration; then logically Paul's writings will be used as the standard for establishing beliefs. If one believes that Jesus' words should be the final authority due to who He was, then the gospels are looked upon as that standard.

The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) present salvation through good deeds and lifestyle changes. The gospel of John presents salvation through belief (faith) in Jesus as the Son of God. Paul's writings present salvation through belief (faith) in Jesus' atoning death, resurrection and all that was given on the Day of Pentecost. What is one to believe? This conundrum causes the casual student of God's Word to scratch his head in utter confusion and avoid the topic entirely.

Many have assumed that if Jesus said something it must be true. Well of course this is a true statement, to say Jesus spoke anything untrue would be blasphemy and is not the issue. But, what Jesus said must be looked at in light of to whom it was spoken, when it was spoken and whether it was superseded by things spoken by others later. The issue is establishing the specifics of context. Everything in the Bible must be taken in context or major problems occur.

As covered in a post long ago; the Bible does say "there is no god". Of course the rest of the verse says; "the fool has said in his heart, there is no god". Ripping things out of context has been the critic's favorite ploy to discredit the integrity of God's Word. It has been said that a person could make the Bible say anything they wanted it to say, if they cared not a whit about context. It must be remembered that the synoptic gospels spend most of their time documenting Jesus' ministry to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It was to them He came and it was them who rejected Him as their Messiah.

What I just said labels me as a dispensationalist. As such, I will gravitate toward John and Paul's writings as more authoritative to the current dispensation than the synoptic gospels. This has nothing to do with anything said by Jesus, it has to do with establishing to whom He spoke what He spoke and to whom Paul spoke what he spoke. Strictly speaking, a dispensationalist believes we are living in the age of grace that started on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Usually, this belief system places heavy emphasis on those things written in the Bible to the "Church", i.e. the "church epistles".

Dispensationalism and legalism have nothing to do with each other except for establishing where in God's Word we go to find definitive answers. Being from a dispensationalist background, I will go to Paul's writings to examine, define and discuss this topic of "legalism". Most of Christianity scoffs at the notion that Paul's writings could possibly carry more weight than what is recorded in the gospels. Because of this, there is a vast chasm between opinions held by those who consider themselves dispensationalist vs. those who do not. Please note that dispensationalism is a theological belief system and not a denomination.

Theological libraries are filled with volumes of books written regarding whether justification by faith comes through good works or grace. Like so many other subjects, if people simply read the Bible, there would not have to be so much confusion. But, due to differences of opinion regarding which scriptures should be viewed as having the final authority, confusion abounds. As for me, I choose to accept the simple solution found in Ephesians 2:8 and 9:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.
Not of works, lest anyone should boast."

I do not know how God could present this any more clearly. Our salvation is a gift from God. We have been saved by grace through our faith in Jesus Christ. We are not saved by faith, but rather we are saved by grace THROUGH faith. Our salvation is absolutely not of works, lest anyone should boast. If salvation were by works, than one could boast of only having to do 6 good works to be saved vs. another who had to 16. Our salvation is by the grace of God through faith. It is the gift of God, and a gift is no longer a gift if it must be worked for or paid for.

Martin Luther started the Protestant reformation over the issue of "justification by faith vs. by works". Many hundred years later, the division still exists not only between Catholics and Protestants, but among different branches of Protestants. The question still remains; where do good works enter the equation? Are they necessary for salvation or are they strictly done after salvation to earn eternal rewards? The question of good works along with the very definition of "salvation" must be explored to arrive at any conclusion.

One side of "legalism" deals with the attempt to "work your way into heaven". The foundation of this belief is that good works allow God to declare a person righteous and thus justified from sin. The reward of these good works is salvation. Although this theory may sound logical, it is backward according to God's Word. In Ephesians 2:10 it says:

"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

God saved us by His grace through our faith. Part of our salvation involves God creating in us His spirit, the new man. Spiritually, we are now God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus. God went to all the trouble of doing this for the purpose of us doing good works. In fact, God prepared these good works from before the foundations of the ages that we should walk in them. These good works come AFTER salvation, not before. One prominent belief system states that salvation comes by grace, but to "make it to heaven" one must do these good works.

Theologians are experts at "double talk" and talking around in circles. They can write a book and at the end of the book say they have no answers. If there are no answers than why write the book? In the subject of good works and their relation to salvation I believe there are simple answers, but those answers to me may be looked at as total garbage by someone else with a different theology. Thus, for one person to boldly proclaim "I have the answer" to a question that has generated more controversy than any other within Christianity; is pretty much proof he is wrong.

We all want to stand up and shout our positions on certain matters. That is fine and there is nothing wrong with that. But, in discussing difficult issues, great care has to be taken to not simply make blanket statements which imply the person saying them is right and everyone else is wrong. Before continuing on this topic I wanted anyone reading this to know from what point of view I would be approaching its study.

It does make a difference to many people whether the one writing is a dispensationalist or not. It does make a difference to the one reading whether the author literally believes in the Bible or only uses it as another reference point. It does make a difference if the presentation is only theological arguing or an honest attempt to find answers. These things all do make a difference as to whether one wants to read the presentation of not.

I do not pretend to present an unbiased rambling dissertation on a subject as vital as this. What I am planning to do is present material from the point of view of one who believes we are living in the dispensation of Grace which started on the Day of Pentecost. I wanted you to know what you were getting into before reading the next installment of what may be many posts.

^{Creative Commons: Attribution}

Posted: Mar 02 2008 02:55:27pm by blessings2you Total Views: 2344 ShortURL: http://christianblog.com/b9ff	Print This Blog Translate This Blog
Tweet

Author: blessings2you

Posted Mar 02 2008 08:41:34pm

Please be advised that any further posts on this topic will be shorter and less formal in nature. I am sorry for the length and the "stuffy" tone of this introduction, but it was the only way to get started.
Thank You and God Bless you.
Blessings 2 You

Author: allforhim
Posted Mar 03 2008 03:56:45am

I suffered from "legalism" for a little while and what it made me was a very condemning, judgmental Christian, with non-believers and especially with believers. It was my heart that was not right, I was like the Pharisee that looked over at the sinner and said to God "I am glad I am not like that sinner." God had to bring me pretty low before I could see clearly. Now I have strong integrity and morals but also I have mercy and compassion, now I can say "But for the grace of God there go I." As Paul says I was the chief sinner and if it were not for God's grace and mercy on a sinner like me salvation would not be mine. I did NOTHING to earn it. I also believe that "works" come from the fruit of the Spirit, if they are to be true works. I am so glad that we humans may look at the outer appearance but God looks at the heart. I do not have to earn favor, or try to earn my good rewards in heaven but simply love God with all my heart, soul and mind and love my neighbor as myself. His Spirit manifests itself in me and spurs me on to do that which is right. Thanks for a thought provoking blog and a rememberence of where I have come from. Blessings! Andrea

Author: savedbyegrace
Posted Mar 03 2008 04:24:42am

I was once called (well, it was strongly implied) :) of being legalistic because of my insistence on a personal DISCIPLINE of having a morning quiet time. I have simply learned by trial and error what I need to do. Which fits more your first definition of legalism rather than the second definition. So just to add another dimension, there is a difference between legalism and solid discipline.

And the faith vs. works debate will rage on, I suppose, with verses such as:
Jam 2:17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
Jam 2:26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

But as I realized last week and blogged about whether one can be condemned for not forgiving, it is a fruit of genuine salvation. So once we experience this genuine salvation, we are so overflowing with Christ that we forgive and do other good works, prepared in advance for us!

Great blog, brother.

Author: kreynolds

Posted Mar 03 2008 05:19:50am

If the enemy can't destroy you one way, he'll try another. We see time and time again in both the gospels as well as in the rest of the New Testament how God feels about us focusing so much on the fault that we fail to see the person. An example I'm thinking of in particular is the adulterous woman. Her accusers saw her as an adulterer. That was true and she did break the law and deserved punishment. However, while Jesus knew what she had done, he saw her. He saw a lost and wounded lamb who desperately needed to know that in spite of everything, God loved her...even in the state she was in and if she would let him, he would lift her up out of the pit, tend to her wounds and make her well, strong and beautiful.

I'm looking forward to reading more.

Author: iraqivetsgtret

Posted Mar 03 2008 06:57:07am

amen my brother and i appreciate the way you wrote what you belive needed to be written and explained what needed to be explained.and all the responces to your bloghas helped my perspective on the topic also.looking forword to read your next blog, keep your head up and stay strong and most of all be blessed

Author: kraftykatz

Posted Mar 03 2008 08:47:01am

B2Y,
Some of what you wrote goes a bit over my head and I will need time to process all the information. Hopefully your future blogs on this subject will help.
You said many people focus on one religion or church when talking about legalism. I grew up in a community settled by the Dutch. As a child, the influence of the Christian Reformed doctrine ruled this community. I mention this only to show that maybe the reason some focus on one religion is because like me their exposure has been to primarily to one. We do have several other denominations, but the Reformed have the largest number of churches.
Just a thought.
KraftyKatz
:coffee:

drinking tea and contemplating what B2Y has written

Author: harvest
Posted Mar 03 2008 11:15:18am

Just what is legalism? My thought is if you asked 12 individuals you would receive 12 different answers. I was raised in a church most people today would consider legalistic. However, there was never any question of justification. We are saved by Grace through faith in Jesus, our Lord. This was taught always. I'm thinking what would be considered legalistic was the preaching and teaching on holiness. Anyhow .. this started as a comment and grew much too large so I posted it as a blog, "Holiness to the Lord, Works to be Avoided".

Blessings

Praying for the Harvest

Author: crosseyes
Posted Mar 03 2008 02:42:19pm

It also makes a difference if the person is Muslim or not but that doesn't take away from the fact that Jesus is Savior and God. I hear what you are saying, but there is an absolute truth within the Word of God that deals with the basics of our faith. And grace vs. good works isn't something that Christians can disagree upon.

For example, Christ is God. This isn't something you can argue against (like Sabbath worship), and still call yourself a Christian. It is a shame that in today's time of political correctiveness what I'm saying will probably offend someone, which is not my intent, but if you think for a second that the death and sacrifice of the Creator of the universe (whom stepped down off of His Throne of Glory, took on the incarnation of one of His creations and was tortured and killed by this very same creation so that the sin of the entire created race would be forgiven), is not sufficient enough for your salvation then may what I'm writing bless you and lead you to the Word of God so that He can open your eyes to the real truths of our Christian Faith.

His death was sufficient for every man, angel, and any other creation He sees fit to create for all of eternity. He doesn't need our help now nor will He ever need it. So yes, I would fit into the category of one of those Christians that thinks he has the absolute answer. The only problem is that this is not my answer, it is his.

We have to be careful as Christians because some things are not acceptable. We weren't sent here to placate every group or belief. Let's just present the Word of God unapologetically as it is and let God do the rest. I can't even believe that this is something that Christians would argue over.

Author: crosseyes
Posted Mar 03 2008 09:04:18pm

Blessings2you, you have written what I think are some of the most spirit filled blogs on this site. And for that I thank God that you have fingers to type and I have eyes to read. But there are a few things on this post that maybe you could/should elaborate on. For starters you've posted "What is one to believe" regarding the Synoptic Gospels vs. Paul's writings as if there is a difference in theology between the two. Could you please show me where they differ because I haven't found a single contradiction?

Could you also clear up the part where you say that what Jesus said is okay as long as it is not superseded by what other prophets may say? Let's think about this one for a second, should a man's words hold more authority than that of the God of the Universe, the God who is the author of the faith that the prophets and apostles adhere to? God forbid. That's just like saying that a Privates' words may have more authority than the General's words who gave him the orders in the first place. That doesn't make any since. Furthermore, I haven't found where Paul contradicts the Lord, but if he did, may the letters that he wrote be torn from the Bible and burnt to ashes. Now for all those who have been blessed with that measure of faith, we know that God gave Paul those words through revelation by way of the Holy Spirit. So the essence of Paul's words was given by God and we know that there can be no contradiction between his and that of the Lords because a kingdom divided amongst itself cannot stand.

You may have the same problem that I had when I first came to the faith. I used to think that the Paul was a greater prophet than Jesus because he was strait forward and didn't talk in parables and there were plenty of practical applications that came from his words. But after carefully considering the Synoptic Gospels I discovered that that idea couldn't have been further from the truth. Which is greater, a prophet who talks about what he has seen or one that can only talk about what he has heard? Or a better example is this: let's say that a Great King came to town for a specific purpose above any other, but while he was in town he says to his people that loving your King with all your might will lead to the Kings favor and then he leaves to finish his work. Later, he sends a servant to elaborate on how the King wants to be loved. This doesn't give the servant more authority, it simply brings clarity to the Kings wishes.

You cannot break the Christian faith down to a science. I think as Christians sometimes we get so caught up in choosing which nonessential beliefs or labels we fall under, dispensationalist, legalism, etc. that we back track so far to the point that we find ourselves contradicting our own faith. KISS( Keep It Simple Stupid) that's the motto I live by. In conclusion, there could be no prophet greater than God himself who is the object of our faith. There are no words that have more authority than his.

Author: blessings2you

Posted Mar 04 2008 12:30:00am

Time and space do not allow turning this into a "position papaer" on the pros and cons of dispensationalism, which is nothing but theological jargon anyway. Either one believes the Bible timeline is horizontal or vertical. In other words either each "era" or "age" stands on its own (horizontal) or each is built upon the other (verical).
The only reason the statement was made regarding things Jesus said vs. Paul was in relation to salvation. Jesus implied in Matthew, Mark and Luke that the criteria for salvation was different than Paul's throughout his epistles. Well, certainly that would expected since things such as the resurrection were not yet available when Jesus spoke (for he was still alive). Of course Paul was not a greater man of spokesman than Jesus, but Jesus could not speak of things that were still future and dealt with the results of his death and resurrection. He spoke of the time that was then present, and to his ministry then upon earth.
Secifically Jesus came to minister to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He came to Israel and they rejected him as their Messiah. He fulfilled all legal requirements to be Savior and after the resurrection he became head of his body and Lord and Christ.
Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus and called him to be an apostle to the Gentiles. Paul, who was a Jew, for a season preached Christ to fellow Jews, but later in Acts he tired of their unbelief and specifically went to the Gentiles whom he was called to minister. Together, the Jews and the Gentiles make up the church of God and are the one body of Christ. All these concepts were given to Paul to write about in his epistles addressed to the church.
There are millions upon millions of Christians who read the four gospels and never read any of Paul's letters for to them, they are not important. Unfortunately, without a knowledge of Paul's writings, one has little understanding of what is written to the church of God, the body of Christ.

Author: tchable

Posted Mar 04 2008 06:50:22am

If only people could get this one verse in their spirit and receive revelation of its meaning and application to the Holy Scripture and God's time table then a very bright light would shine on their understanding of what has happened in the past, what is now, and what is to come.

Matthew 15:24 (NKJV) But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Blessings from NC

Author: crosseyes
Posted Mar 04 2008 09:45:28am

Thank you for taking the time out to read my comments and respond to them. Some bloggers don't like to do that for fear of getting into a dispute that would lead to our natural selves showing their ugly heads. However, I think that as Christians we need to perfect the art of disagreeing in a calm, unconfrontational, Christian like manner. I think that in this way all parties can increase their knowledge and understanding of God's Word.

From my understanding in Mathew 15:24 the Lord was actually referring to his real purpose which was to redeem the ones he had chosen before the creation, both Gentile and Jew alike.

In order to respond to this blog you must be a registered member and logged into the ChristianBlog.Com website.

Information:
About ChristianBlog.Com
Terms of Service
Content Policy
Privacy Policy
DMCA

Resources:
Advertisement Options
Contact Us
RSS Feeds
Pledge Partnership
Website Update History

Sponsors:
Amazon Kindle
Logos Bible Software
Lamsa Bible Online
Assembly of God Jobs Online
OneTimeMessage.Com