Often when I try to show professing Christians they must keep the moral law of Christ or their faith is dead (Jam 2:17) I get accused of legalism or of being a Pharisee. Most people misunderstand what legalism really is. I would consider a good example of legalism today to be those that require you to keep sect rules and say you are not saved if you don’t.
Wikipedia has one of the better definitions of legalism I have seen and one I pretty much agree with.
Legalism, in Christian theology, is a pejorative term referring to an over-emphasis on law or codes of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigor, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law over the spirit. Legalism is alleged against any view that obedience to law, not faith in God’s grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption. Its opposite error is antinomianism, which is alleged against a view that moral laws are not binding.
I find that many professing Christians will accuse you of legalism if you hold that Christians must be obedience to the moral law of Christ. I am not talking about sect rules here I am talking about the moral law of Christ as we find it in the New Testament. They that hold that the moral law of Christ is not binding are what I would call antinomians.
Dictionary.com definition of antinomianism — a person who maintains that Christians are freed from the moral law by virtue of grace as set forth in the gospel.
One Ping to “A Good Definition of Legalism”
4 Responses to “A Good Definition of Legalism”
-
1. christophmcleod Says:
August 11th, 2008 at 9:28 pmIn this post you mention a couple of times “Christians must be obedient to the moral law of Christ”. Two questions, 1) what is the moral law of Christ? (Ten Commandments?) 2) what do you mean by “must be obedient”? What happens if they aren’t? Does that prove that they were never really children of God afterall? Does it mean they won’t be able to live a life free from sin?
-
2. Bob Mutch Says:
August 11th, 2008 at 10:38 pmHi christophmcleod; The ten commandments has one ceremonial law which is Saturday keeping.
The moral law of Christ is the New Testament law. I would consider the Old Testament covenant or law (moral, ceremonial, civil) replaced by the New Testament covenant or law. Most commandments in the New Testament covenant are moral but there are some ceremonial like baptism.
I don’t believe that willful sin is compatible with true faith. If a Christian is willfully disobedient to a known law of Christ they no longer have true faith and need to do there first works over again and be saved. I won’t says some one that goes back into sin after being saved was never saved.
I hold that all Christians live a life free from willful sin.
-
3. Jim Says:
November 28th, 2009 at 6:15 amI agree with you. A believer should follow after holiness, after all; God has called us onto holiness. As long as a person realizes that they can walk in the Spirit because they have been Justified and not that they are Justified on account of their holy living. For a person to think that they are in right standing with God due to their own righteousness, they would have to greatly misunderstand a large part of the NT. I notice in one of your articles that you reject semi-pelagianism. I would assume that you would reject the wellspring of semi-pelagianism as well (Pelagianism.) The reason I ask is because I thought I detected you referring to Finney in a favorable light. I followed Finney for years. My copy of his Systematic Theology is nearly worn out and so marked with underlining and notes, it’s nearly unreadable. I was a Finneyite through and through. Thank God he brought me out of that, as Finney was a pure Pelagainist. Denied original sin, and based his whole system on the carnal reasoning that obligation requires ability. A philosopical concept the he called a “first truth of reason requiring no proof.” He denied the atonement or that Christ actually died for anyone…he died to satisfy “public justice.” Actually, Barnes wrote a whole book on the subject and bought into the “new school” theology as well. Finney denied any influence of the Holy Spirit beyond ‘moral suasion”, etc. He remade every major doctrine in the Bible into something out of his own convoluted logic. In the end here is where you arrive. Present entire obedience is the condition of Justification. In other words..how does this sound: total and complete current sanctification is the condition of you staying Justified. I’m sorry, the Bible says that God is just and the justifier of the UNGODLY! Justification goes before sanctification. His brand of righteousness is something accomplished by YOU, as you were always able to obey the law anyway. I could go on. This is not the gospel, it is a system of works religion that is actually another gospel. So if you are toying with Finney I caution you as someone who does have a sound grasp of what he is all about. Your site puts out the vibe that you are quite the scholar, so I hope you have considered the ramifications of Finney’s Pelagianism and know what you’re getting into. If I’m wrong about your affection for C.G.Finney, please forgive my presumptousness.
-
4. joe cotroneo Says:
April 3rd, 2010 at 4:16 pmWhy complicate the matter? …. it is simple
What you may call the moral law is merely Jesus’ commandments or sayings
reference Matt 7:24-27
24.Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25.And the rain descended , and the floods came , and the winds blew , and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26.And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27.And the rain descended , and the floods came , and the winds blew , and beat upon that house; and it fell : and great was the fall of it.A good starting point would be the sermon on the mount of which these words above
are our Lord’s concluding remarks…the only problem is that most people
have reasoned that it is not necessary to follow Jesus in these matter
or not “practical”I even heard of a pastor who was convicted in this area and decided
to preach the sermon on the mount and that we ought to follow it 100%He lost 1/2 his congregation in 2 weeks
Didn’t Jesus in Matt 7:13-14 say for us to enter in by the straight gate
which leads unto life, but there are FEW that find it?And immediately therafter he goes on to preach against false prophets, I
believe because he knew that many would “water down his words” or say
it was not necessary to follow his sayingsDo you Love Jesus?
Jesus said those who love Him KEEPS His commandments
John 14:21……There is NO OTHER way to Love Jesus by His own words
than to OBEY HimAfter all this…didn’t Jesus say….
Why do you call Me Lord and not do what I say?
May 3rd, 2010 at 7:02 am
hi guys…
hi guysI would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well and i have start my own blog now, , thanks for your effort…