Can we define Legalism?

[Salty]

First know use of Legalism apparently was in 1928


Since he was born in 1926, Hyles would have been in his "terrible two's" in 1928! :smilewinkgrin:

Not suggesting anything - just saying.


Did you know that First Bap, Hammond was ABC, until Hyles took over....(see link above)

 

[michael-acts17:11]

The word "legalism" cannot be found in Scripture, & is therefore a modern term. The argument that legalism only refers to adding the Law to salvation is fallacious at best. Since it is an English word, we must use an English dictionary to discover its definition; not proof-text it.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines legalism as "strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice>"

I'd say that is an excellent definition that describes the many IFB churches to a "T". Legalism ALWAYS restricts free choice because it is a means of controlling others via unScriptural means. This is also a very good definition of the leaven of the Pharisees. Hence, legalistic churches are viewed as modern Pharisees.

 

[DHK]

The word "legalism" cannot be found in Scripture, & is therefore a modern term. The argument that legalism only refers to adding the Law to salvation is fallacious at best. Since it is an English word, we must use an English dictionary to discover its definition; not proof-text it.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines legalism as "strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice>"

I'd say that is an excellent definition that describes the many IFB churches to a "T". Legalism ALWAYS restricts free choice because it is a means of controlling others via unScriptural means. This is also a very good definition of the leaven of the Pharisees. Hence, legalistic churches are viewed as modern Pharisees.

The word trinity is not found in the Bible either, but the concept is. Neither are the words: theology, Christology, Bibliology, etc. But I do hope you believe in the study of each and every one of them. There are many words that we used to define concepts that are not in the Bible, but are clearly taught in the Bible. Here is where legalism is clearly taught in the Bible:

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1)
--These were the first legalists. They followed Paul wherever he went trying to disrupt the work that he started. Most of Galatians deals with this problem. What did these men do and believe. They added their works (circumcision and the keeping of the law) as requirements to salvation. That is legalism. Whenever you add to the gospel message of grace, works, then it is legalism. The Church of Christ does that.

You can find many definitions of the word "church" in an English dictionary. But only one fits the Bible's definition. We go to the Bible, not English dictionaries for our theology.

 

[freeatlast]

Can we define legalism, or is it simply anyone stricter than I am? Here are a few examples of what some might call legalism:

1. I believe I should dress up for church, but don't necessarily think everyone else should.
2. I believe I should dress up for church, and I think other people should too, but I don't say anything.

3. I believe that it would be wrong for me to go to a movie, but I think other Christians have to decide for themselves.
4. I believe Christians should not go to movies.

5. I believe that I should not preach except in a white shirt or tie, but that other preachers can preach in different colors
6. I believe no preacher should preach in a blue shirt, only a white shirt with a tie.


Please give your definitions and reasons for what you consider "legalism."

Legalism is suggesting, or requiring anything of a person that God does not require or suggest for salvation or to serve and live for God once saved.

An example of legalism for salvation is to tell a person they have to repent of their sin to be saved. We are told we must come to repentance towards God not repent of sin to be saved. Repentance of sin is the result of repentance towards God not the repentance itself. To repent of sin falls short of biblical repentance and in fact is works salvation and legalism. Many turn from certain sins, with no surrender (repentance towards God) to God, and think that because of this if they ask Jesus into their hearts God will save them when in fact He will not because that is legalism.

Next an example of legalism after salvation is to tell someone they need to tithe after they are saved. The bible says we are to all give but not based on any legalistic system as the tithe. Our giving amount is to totally come from a personal choice with no suggestion or pressure based on an amount or percent, but rather coming from a peaceful and cheerful heart.
These are just two examples of legalism as there are many more.

 

[JesusFan]

The issues concerning legalism was clarified long ago right here:

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1)
--Here was the problem. These men wanted to ADD to salvation WORKS of circumcision and the keeping of the law. Note that they believed that it was necessary for their salvation. These men, called Judaizers, were legalists. And all who have followed in their footsteps--adding works to grace are the same--legalists.

Concerning the law: Which of the 613 were you referring to?

Mosaic law of the 10 Commandments!

Also, wouldn't legalists also be those who are really saved by Grace of God, but still live like under the Law?

try to live by their own rights/wrongs even after saved, and wanting others to do same as they do in order to be "good Christians?"

 

[JesusFan]

Legalism is suggesting, or requiring anything of a person that God does not require or suggest for salvation or to serve and live for God once saved.

An example of legalism for salvation is to tell a person they have to repent of their sin to be saved. We are told we must come to repentance towards God not repent of sin to be saved. Repentance of sin is the result of repentance towards God not the repentance itself. To repent of sin falls short of biblical repentance and in fact is works salvation and legalism. Many turn from certain sins, with no surrender (repentance towards God) to God, and think that because of this if they ask Jesus into their hearts God will save them when in fact He will not because that is legalism.

Next an example of legalism after salvation is to tell someone they need to tithe after they are saved. The bible says we are to all give but not based on any legalistic system as the tithe. Our giving amount is to totally come from a personal choice with no suggestion or pressure based on an amount or percent, but rather coming from a peaceful and cheerful heart.
These are just two examples of legalism as there are many more.

BIGGEST way would be to be saved by the grace of God, and yet still try to live as if under the Law!

 

[freeatlast]

BIGGEST way would be to be saved by the grace of God, and yet still try to live as if under the Law!

If you mean by "try to live under the law" someone keeping the feasts, sacrifices, Sabbaths, and such then yes that would be legalism. If you mean seeking to obey the commandments then no as that would be under faith.

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

The commandments are not imposed on the saved by men. The obedience to them is a natural result of being saved. Every true believer seeks and wants to keep the commandments from the moment of salvation.

 

[DHK]

Mosaic law of the 10 Commandments!

Also, wouldn't legalists also be those who are really saved by Grace of God, but still live like under the Law?

try to live by their own rights/wrongs even after saved, and wanting others to do same as they do in order to be "good Christians?"

No, you are opening up a whole new can of worms. I have the right to live the way I please to a certain degree. Why should my desire to live (if it were my desire) in accordance with the law, bother you. If that is what I like for my lifestyle that is my right. Or, do you wish we all lived under the reign of Bloody Mary Tudor, Queen of England--Be a devout Catholic or off with your head! That is what you are advocating--a total denial of soul liberty. That is not legalism and has nothing to do with legalism.

 

[JesusFan]

No, you are opening up a whole new can of worms. I have the right to live the way I please to a certain degree. Why should my desire to live (if it were my desire) in accordance with the law, bother you. If that is what I like for my lifestyle that is my right. Or, do you wish we all lived under the reign of Bloody Mary Tudor, Queen of England--Be a devout Catholic or off with your head! That is what you are advocating--a total denial of soul liberty. That is not legalism and has nothing to do with legalism.

IF one chooses to live by the Law, and not be living as we can/should as under the New Covenant...

You are indeed under legal bondage, NOT in the way God has set us free to be!

So that would be a self imposed legal status,and IF you required others to live as thta, would fall under "legalism!"

 

[Aaron]

The word "legalism" cannot be found in Scripture, & is therefore a modern term. The argument that legalism only refers to adding the Law to salvation is fallacious at best. Since it is an English word, we must use an English dictionary to discover its definition; not proof-text it.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines legalism as "strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice>"

I'd say that is an excellent definition that describes the many IFB churches to a "T". Legalism ALWAYS restricts free choice because it is a means of controlling others via unScriptural means. This is also a very good definition of the leaven of the Pharisees. Hence, legalistic churches are viewed as modern Pharisees.

Usage determines meaning. Scripturally, legalism is judaizing, adding one's own works of either righteousness or rite to faith as a condition for salvation.

If we prefer the commonly employed definition of legalism, then Paul was a legalist, and it would behoove us to embrace legalism as well.

 

[JesusFan]

Usage determines meaning. Scripturally, legalism is judaizing, adding one's own works of either righteousness or rite to faith as a condition for salvation.

If we prefer the commonly employed definition of legalism, then Paul was a legalist, and it would behoove us to embrace legalism as well.

Think the Bible seperates this into 2 types...

Legalism in the sense of having to do something in addition to faith alone/grace alone in order to become saved

Legalism towards once saved, that try to keep saved, in "good standing" by keeping the works of the law!

 

[DHK]

IF one chooses to live by the Law, and not be living as we can/should as under the New Covenant...

You are indeed under legal bondage, NOT in the way God has set us free to be!

So that would be a self imposed legal status,and IF you required others to live as thta, would fall under "legalism!"

Who are you to dictate to me the lifestyle that I choose to live. You now tangle with your own constitution. Is there no freedom in your nation? I can live the way I choose to live--even under grace. That is my choice. If you don't like it, then don't look.

 

[freeatlast]

Think the Bible seperates this into 2 types...

Legalism in the sense of having to do something in addition to faith alone/grace alone in order to become saved

Legalism towards once saved, that try to keep saved, in "good standing" by keeping the works of the law!

It is faith alone, but to be biblical faith it requires repentance towards God or it is not faith.
I would agree that any idea that we must preform to remain saved is legalism, yet at the same time to suggest a person can even be saved and not be keeping to commandments is also false. Our obediance does not make us or keep us saved. It is the result of being born again and having the Spirit live within us.
I would add that we are all subject to one another in how we live. If we are violating God's absolutes then we are subject to the church.