Confessions of a Recovering Legalist

Yep- I'd be a recovering legalist (as the author uses the term). I made a profession of faith as a child and kept the list for years... and then I got saved. Amazing what salvation will do to your Christian perspective.

I still have a list of sorts, but its origin is the clearly defined principles of the Word of God, and not the expectations of others. My goal is to obey the command to strive to be holy, and what comes out in my actions and appearance is a result of that effort, and not a desire to adhere to the traditional Fundy List of Do's and Don'ts. That list is made up completely of exterior behaviors, like "Don't go to the movies"... but weightier matters such as kindness, self-control, and generosity are completely left out. Self-control will result in being able to resist the lusts of the flesh and mind, and a kind and generous spirit will be conscience of not causing another brother to stumble... which for some folks may result in not going to the movies, but not going to a movie in and of itself does not do anything to make one holy without the proper motive.

Honesty about one's struggles is important as well- wasn't Paul honest about the fact that he often wanted to do right and failed miserably? I do not understand people who are 'respected Christians' or in positions of authority and influence in the church who present a 'victorious Christian' front, but in reality are jockeying for power, influence, and respect, while in their personal lives they can't control their bitterness, their mouths or their temper, and they have no compassion or graciousness with those around them. I know a few folks 'in the ministry' that are well known and respected, but I have a feeling that all their good works are going to go up in smoke, because their ministry and testimony is a facade to keep people at a respectful arm's length so they won't get a glimpse of their true character, or lack thereof.

Do you happen to have a link for this?

Practical, candid insight. Thanks Bro Brent.

... you hit it right on the head. Thanks for your thoughts, Brent.

I did find this link for Mahaney's "Enjoying Grace and Detecting Legalism", a free download: http://www.sovereigngracestore.com/downloadFiles.aspx?key=Free13f9ff0e-d... . Listening to it now. Good stuff.

I grew up in what might be considered ultimate legalism. If you didn't go to church on Sunday, is was a mortal sin. Also, weekly confession of my sins was necessary to not have them send me to Hell. If I didn't make my first Communion and Confirmation, I was out of the loop of the blessed. Without taking, at least, weekly communion, I was in condemnation of my sins.

As a Roman Catholic, I had to do many things to be on God's side, hopefully to escape Hell someday, and to not spend too many years in Purgatory. But when I received Christ as my Savior, the burden shifted, for He bore all my sins, and the uncertainty of heaven as my destiny was removed.

Now it's a desire to please Him, who died for me, giving myself as a living sacrifice, that directs my life.

I've listened to this sermon several times over the last few years. It's a great one.

I've been meditating on Jerry Bridges other book "Respectable Sins" - as always, 'take the fish and leave the bones,' but I appreciate the way this book has caused me to look within to see my own failures rather than looking at others to discover and expose theirs. Both are necessary, but God's grace is indispensable in both judging others and examining ourselves.

Anyway, I recommend the book to those who are struggling with "legalism" - even though that term makes me a bit nervous.

My husband has had this tape for years, and I just got to listen to the message this morning, being ill at home today. Excellent material by Jim Binney, entitled "When God Smiles". Here is the link for Part 1, and Part 2 can be found on this same Sermon Audio page: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=72081527410

Although I don't have 20 dresses, I think we're on the same page here. There is a major difference between trying to earn merit with God and trying to please Him.

First, I appreciated the insights from Mike Mann. Discussions on this subject can easily swing from one extreme to another. The Law/Grace dichotomy has to do with the Mosaic Law. The NT has hundreds of commands, precepts, principles that should be obeyed by Faith in God's Word. Reasonable applications of those commands, precepts, and principles to the modern world are in order. Paul regularly condemned the Judaizers for imposing the Mosaic Law on the NT church, particularly when the Law was being applied to Gentiles. These were the legalists. Admittedly, we have overly scrupulous brethren in IFB churches who make faulty interpretations and applications of Scripture. The vast majority of them are either biblically ignorant, lazy Bible students, or perhaps have not been exposed to better models of ministry. However, very few are trying to earn merit with God for their salvation. All of us hopefully are laboring for the Lord that we might receive his commendation of being faithful in message, motive, and ministry. The paradox in Scripture is that God graciously rewards us for faithful obedience while simultaneously reminding us that we are all unprofitable servants and that when we have served Him we have only done that which is dutifully expected.

Ken,

The temptation for the Galatians was to apostatize by embracing a hybrid gospel of Judaism and Christianity. Paul's constant anxiety was over the forsaking of the Christian faith by individuals who had initially embraced Christianity (“labored in vain”). Grace is unmerited favor to the ill-deserving. It is also divine power to continue to work out the salvation that God miraculously worked in. The bondage Paul speaks of is coming under the Mosaic Law to earn or maintain one's salvation. Paul, however, never viewed personal responsibility to work out one's salvation, mortify the deeds of the flesh, make no provision for the flesh, etc. as a legalistic attempt to earn or maintain merit with Christ. Frankly, I do not know many in IFB churches who would view their keeping of standards as earning or maintaining merit with God. Much of this is a straw man. What I have noticed, however, is that many sincere people simply have not carefully understood the authorial intent of certain passages in Scripture and thereby form erroneous convictions and applications. They are not legalistic. They are to some degree misinformed or ignorant (some willfully so).

Mike D.

I appreciate your willingness to define modern day legalism. Some define legalism as rules. I think everyone has rules of some kind—some more than others. Your definition goes beyond mere rules to the intent of justifying one's self before God by the keeping of various rules. Perhaps, this self-justification is unknown to the legalist. However, I think if I were to accuse someone or some institution of such a serious charge, I would have to present clear evidence that such self-justification is the case. At BJU we had many rules. Some were moral; others were institutional for orderly function. I was not under the impression that the rules sanctified me per se. However, the rules were given for moral and functional order. I think a Christian educational institution has an obligation to teach the moral principles behind their rules. Also, such institutions must emphasize that the keeping of rules by no means equals a relationship with God. Nevertheless, the rules serve a practical function in an educational institution much like they serve a practical function in a family.

Not long ago, I finished reading Moo's commentary on Romans. My personal evaluation of his commentary is that it is the finest of many excellent commentaries on Romans. Moo argues that Paul's use of the Law in Romans is the Mosaic Law and not law in general. I think this is critical to the discussion. I don't think that Paul who championed grace viewed grace as opposed to the principle of law. Instead, I understand Paul as showing that the NT church, unlike Israel, is no longer under the Mosaic Law. Paul did not view the Law of Moses as evil. However, we have a different relationship to it than did Israel under the Old Covenant. Those matters in the OT Law that are repeated or adjusted for us in the NT, rooted in the created order and unchanging attributes of God, still have the force of command under the authority of Christ. We obey those commands by faith in God's word empowered by regenerating and sanctifying grace. Our motivation is to please and glorify God. The result of which is good works, holiness, obedience, and spiritual fruit without which no man will see the Lord. Believers are ordained unto good works. Faith without works is dead. Those who have the Spirit will manifest fruit. Most People would not view John Piper as a legalist. However, Piper emphasizes good works for believers very strongly in Future Grace and The Pleasures of God.

In my understanding of the kind of ministries you are referencing in Fundamentalism, here is the problem as I have evaluated their relationship to grace. Many of these churches and educational institutions have offered a cheap view of grace in the Gospel. They have not emphasized the miraculous work of God in salvation, the Lordship of Christ in Salvation, a true understanding of repentance and faith, and have denied the need for the saints to persevere in the Faith by faith through God's enabling grace. Instead, they have insisted on a litany of rules after one's profession of faith (often superficial), some rules which are not based on accurate exegesis or a clear understanding of the authorial intent of Scripture. In other words, they never understood what the Scriptures said theologically or principally and therefore their rules had no biblical basis in the first place and were absent the theological foundation for their proper meaning. I don't know if legalism is the proper word to describe this problem.

Mike, you and I are in agreement. Rules in such an institution do not make it legalistic. Implementing rules without clearly linking them to God’s Word and purposes, and/or implying that these produce sanctification merely by obedience to them IS legalism – at least in the sense that I was referring to.

At the same time, I have been thinking about the “heart of legalism” that exists in some parts of Fundamentalism for decades, having been exposed to that wing of the movement in my first college (Hyles-Anderson, after which BJU’s rules felt like a breath of freedom).

As for Fundamentalist colleges, my questioning of graduates of them has elicited a variety of responses. Some who attended during your era at BJU, for instance, did get the impression that there was an implied sanctification in following the rules. Others did not. So if two people in the same setting experience the impact of the rules so differently, what does that tell us? Perhaps that we need to be VERY clear on what we are not saying by such rules.

I have written an article on the topic of Legalism and the Christian School movement that addresses some of these topics. It will appear somewhere on line in the near future.

I agree.

Thanks for your comments.

Paul's recent comment led me to this post, which I had not read before. Wonderful article by the way.

I personally think quibbling over definitions of "legalism" is not helpful. I see how it can be a stigma and a term people would want to avoid. I think though that it is a personal thing and certain structures increase the likelihood of it happening. It may be just a low view of grace or not a clear enough teaching on the mechanics of sanctification -- coupled with an extreme emphasis on external rules keeping. Now if you don't want to call that legalism, that's fine. But the result in the hearts of many is a kind of legalism.

We need the Gospel of grace not just to "enter" the Christian life, but for each step along the path. This is what is missing. The messages in my IFBx church/college excelled at "stomping on your toes". The speakers had a gift for hurling loads of guilt upon their hearers. Who hasn't failed often in their efforts to measure up? The problem is the solution was phrased in terms of "re-dedicating" yourself, deciding to do better, getting character, not giving up, etc. The solution was basically "reform yourself", not "rest in Christ's finished work on the cross and the Spirit's work in your hearts". There may be a time for doling out guilt, but only if the remedy is where you leave us. Only if you bring those hearers to Christ. I try to speak to this point in a post from my blog several years back: "Stomping Toes and Stomping Souls: The Moralistic Bent to Fundamentalist Preaching".

For me Gal. 3 is quite helpful in evaluating post-conversion legalism:

We "received the Spirit" (i.e. initial salvation) and we experience the ongoing benefits of (the supply) the Spirit, not by "works of the law", but by "hearing with faith". Because of this, it is crazy to try to be "perfected by the flesh". We advance in sanctification the same way we receive justification -- by hearing the Gospel and responding with faith. This means for continual forgiveness of sin, we need to focus on the Gospel and respond in faith. The Gospel is at work in us believers (see my series on "The Gospel's Work in Believers" for more).

Anyway, great post.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying here Mike. Does "they" refer to fundamentalists or to the evangelical authors Paul referred to? Do fundamentalists disagree with Sanctification by Grace, I think some do. I'm sure some Evangelicals do as well, but I'm with Paul in seeing more evangelical teaching and concern on this issue than I do fundamentalist. But maybe its just because evangelical materials are more widely disseminated and available.

I'm glad that this article was bumped back up. As a newbie on SI I had not seen it.
I'm wondering if we could come up with a book list or a list of online articles on this subject (sanctification and grace) by those who are in, or close to, the fundamentalists.