Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology
The Danger of Legalism in Reformed Circles
by Bill Baldwin
I knew a pastor who was frequently
accused of legalism. He laughed off the charge and offered a
definition of legalism that didn't implicate him. What a tragedy.
And yet how typical of the Reformed community today. Charged with
legalism again and again, we fail to investigate the charge.
"We're just being precise and serious about
the call to good works," we say. And who but an
antinomian-one who believes God's grace does away with any call
to good works-would object to that? This is a serious call to rethink
that attitude and re-discover the Reformational truth, the
Scriptural truth, that we can offer nothing to God but must by
faith receive everything from his hand. In particular, this is a
plea to Reformed preachers to understand that the gospel
is the power of God to salvation. The Law is impotent. And that
doesn't just mean impotent with regard to justification. Paul
died to the Law that he might live by faith in the Son of God. So
must we. So must our congregations. When Paul wants the Galatians to
understand the sinfulness of legalism, he takes them to the Law
so they may understand its nature and their freedom from it. When
he wants the Corinthians to understand the sinfulness of
antinomianism, he doesn't take them to the Law. That's
what a legalist (like one of the Galatians) would do. That's also
what too many in the Reformed church would do. Paul does
something entirely different: He takes them to Christ, the power
and wisdom of God, and to the message of the cross (1 Corinthians
1:18-2:5). He pleads with them on the basis of their new identity
in Christ to purge out the old leaven of sin (5:1-8) and to flee
adultery and fornication since that would join Christ to a harlot
(6:15ff.). And he over and over encourages them not to abuse
their freedom by sinning or causing one another to stumble
(6:12-14; 8:1-13; 10:23-32). He urges them to love one another
(ch. 13) and to believe and hope in the resurrection at the last
day (ch. 15). What modern Reformed theologian
would pursue an antinomian this way? Would we not rather beat him
into submission with the Law and shape him up by that method?
Even now, thinking about this, we are squeamish and reluctant to
go "too far" in understanding our freedom from the Law.
To say we are "no longer slaves" to the Law makes us
uncomfortable, even though the sentiment is taken directly from
Paul (Galatians 4:7). "What if we take that concept too
far?" we whimper. And so we take it not nearly far enough.
It is well and good for Paul to use such radical language; we
must be more prudent. If we actually followed that radical
language, and preached it with the sort of fervor that attends
Paul's mighty words, what would happen? Wouldn't the people of
God overreact and sin that grace may increase? Thus we cheat one
another of the full declaration of God's grace for the same
reason the Catholic church denied justification by faith alone
and suggested that assurance of salvation wasn't a good thing
either: If you already know you're saved-and that apart
from your effort-what incentive is there to work? We deny this
reasoning with respect to justification and smuggle it in the
back door as a goad to sanctification. We might as well go back
to Rome. To compound the problem, legalism is
a sin almost no one admits to committing. I have observed this
truth, at times with amazement. Remember the pastor mentioned in
the first paragraph. He was so used to being accused of legalism
that he had a definition of legalism always ready. As soon as he
was accused, he recited his definition. Needless to say, by his
definition he was not a legalist. It never occurred to him to ask
whether the constant accusations had merit. In a similar vein I
once watched two pastors agreeing that legalism was a common
accusation from those who heard their sermons. The shared
assumption was that they weren't legalistic, so it
mystified them that this charge should so frequently arise. And when a pastor preaches against
legalism, he will almost certainly ruffle feathers in a Reformed
congregation. "It sounds as though you're accusing us of
legalism," is the common, wounded reply. Indeed. Yet the
pastor also accuses his congregation of antinomianism, pleading
with them not to exploit the grace of God by relaxing their
vigilance against sin. This directive is always warmly received.
And it is genuinely received. The Reformed hearer is not
saying, "Preach it brother! The person sitting next to me
needs to hear it!" No, he sits there realizing he
needs to hear this. He is convicted of his sin and seeks afresh
the power of God's Spirit to turn him from it. It's as though
we're always willing to admit we've broken the Law, but
never that we've become re-enslaved to it. And this is particularly
troublesome. In the light of Paul's teaching, legalism is the
worse sin. Compare his reaction to the Galatians (legalists) and
the Corinthians (antinomians). With the Corinthians he is quite
upset, sarcastic even. But still, he calls them
"saints" and thanks God for them in his first breath (1
Corinthians 1:1-6). To the Galatians he wishes grace and peace
and then immediately takes them to task in the strongest possible
language: "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from
Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different
gospel" (Galatians 1:6). He believes the Galatians are in
much graver danger and therefore in need of the stronger rebuke. We wrongly think the answer lies in
some sort of "balance." But balance between
what-antinomianism and legalism? God forbid! Surely we can arrive
at a better solution than becoming antinomians with legalist
tendencies or legalists with hidden antinomianisms. A balance
between grace and works, perhaps? If we emphasize works too much,
people won't realize the importance of grace. But if we
over-emphasize grace, there'll be no incentive to work. Again,
surely we can find a better solution. Bear with me in a little foolishness
when I say that perhaps the first step is admitting there's a
problem. 12-step programs and support groups are far from my cup
of tea. But it might be worth your while to look in the mirror
and take a deep breath and actually say it. My name is
Bill and I have a problem with legalism. If you can't admit this,
the problem is deeply rooted. Think about it: Which is more
likely? 1) Of the two major categories of sin, legalism and
antinomianism, your sins are only in one? 2) Your problem
with legalism is demonstrated by your inability to see you have a
problem. If this ruffles your feathers, ask yourself why. Have
you been vigilant against legalism? Have you been rooting it out
by faith and the gospel at every opportunity? When was the last
time you confessed your legalism to God? When was the last time
you thought of yourself as "free from the Law" without
adding an entire list of things that phrase doesn't mean
(with the result that you spend almost no time thinking about
what it does)? What biblical steps have you taken to rid
yourself of legalism (and how do you know they're biblical)? If
you've never given much attention to these questions and this
problem, is it because you're really not very legalistic? Think
sanely for a moment: how likely is that? How likely is it that in
an area where you haven't been vigilant, sin has nevertheless
failed to seize the opportunity and creep in? A Reformed article I read a year ago
spoke, in passing, of the great errors of our time, mentioning
Arminianism, Dispensationalism, and antinomianism by name. It
didn't mention legalism. Is it even possible that this is because
there isn't much of a problem with legalism today? On the
contrary, I believe this omission represents a dangerous blind
spot shared by the majority of Reformed Christians. The Reformed
church today barely talks about legalism. All of our
efforts are directed toward stamping out antinomianism. Again, is
it even possible that with such a posture on our part,
legalism has failed to creep in? I think not. Wake up and smell
the Galatian danger! Identify where the legalism has come in. And
act quickly and decisively against it by promoting a right
understanding of the gospel and thus proclaiming our freedom from
the Law. When we can do this without squeamishness but rather
with the vigor and boldness of Paul, then we will by grace have
cast off our shackles and become God's freemen again. I say all this as a Pastor, almost
by way of apology, knowing I have not been as bold as I should be
in declaring my congregation's freedom from the Law. My heart
thrills to read Paul's radical language. But I fear that if I use
such language I will be accused of antinomianism. Too often I
chicken out. I also need to repent of legalism and to root it out
at its first appearance. To that end I have provided a definition
of legalism below that will, I hope, make it easier to identify
the danger. But beware! Do not become legalistic in your rooting
out of legalism. Merely identifying legalism gives you no power
to combat it. That comes from faith alone, and, hence, from the
preaching of Christ, the use of the sacraments, and prayer. A
Definition of Legalism
Date: 9-25-97
| Bill Baldwin was an ordained minister in the Reformed denomination of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) in southern California. He has a commitment to the centrality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a desire to nourish by that Gospel, strengthened to good works. He studied under Meredith G. Kline, a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in California. |