Having just anyone define legalism can lead to misunderstandings.
Having given this topic some thought recently, I decided to see what something as universal as Wikipedia had to say about the topic.
I was pleased to see how "legalism" is variously defined by many different Christian subdivisions of the Body of Christ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(theology)
Although I can respect someone else's opinion, I do not respect someone dictating that their opinion is not just that, but in fact is Truth.
My definition of Legalism is not simply anything that is a tradition being taught instead of truth. My definition is this: when rules, laws,traditions,customs,systems,methods, norms, or anything like that are imposed upon ones' self or on someone else with the intent that these will bring about righteous God approved living.
If anyone seeks to be approved by God for their works, I submit that this is a trap of Satan to delude us into thinking that we can , outside of Christ, do anything pleasing to God.
Too many people skip Christ, leave Him out of the equation, out of the discussion, and out of their thoughts. They act apart for Christ, by their own volition, ( "free will" ) and beleive that they are pleasing to God. They study God's words, witness for Christ, they do good things, they avoid things that God states are sin, and behave themselves. They think that they are gaining heavenly rewards.... (which in fact some may be doing) but I submit that these are selfish, self-centered,sinners who are stealing God's glory for themselves. They are seeking a crown that they can wear to glorify themselves, not a crown that they will cast down before the King of Kings.
God is not mocked... his is jealous for His Glory. He will expose the selfishness of mankind and we all will be totally humbled.....
Legalism is not just following traditions. Legalism is seeking to be pleasing to God by our works.
Unless a work is accompanied by a pure willing heart, it is an imposition, and something forced upon us or forced out of us. Only Christ had that heart, we do not. Only Christ is us gives us that heart. Only Christ should have the glory. But we seek to subvert this in order that we appear approved in our own eyes. It is hard to accept how bad we really are. No one likes it, yet that is exactly how it is.
I personally do not trust any of my "works". I have examined them, seen how selfish and self centered I am, and I have concluded that they are flawed, inadequate, and stained by sin. Yet I rejoice that God has, in Christ , accepted me as I am. His Grace is sufficient for me. I try not to live out God's law, I try to live out God's love.
This is my opinion. I feel pretty certain that some of us here will disagree, provide proof texts and arguements that counter these conclusions of mine, and continue to hold themselves up as anonymous authorities that everyone should heed. That makes me sad.
For the most aprt, 'and ament'.
For 'I try not to live out God's law, I try to live God's love', I say both 'amen' (if what is meant is the law which works death in men, which is a curse, which makes sin exceedingly sinful), and 'also depends on how 'law' is defined, since both "Torah" and "nomos" are variously used in Scripture, quite differently and more diversely than we do or tend to know; our 'law' is a reduced term, practically to one sense, and does not have the same associations and connotations, denotations, etc., depending on usage; I have no problem with works--they are commendable--if done in faith, with the knowledge that they do not save, but salvation is by grace through faith, according to the mercy of God upon whom He will--and we really have nothing to do with it: we are truly helpless: men today throw-around 'helpless' when preaching, 'you need Christ', yet then urge men to a work, and from there assure men based on the sincerity of that work. : (
I don't even have a problem with those who 'practice the law' in the sense of conviction to abide by something, but in the sense of 'going back to the law' as if we aren't redeemed from it (and that, I'll admit, is hard to distinguish) by Christ's sacrifice--accursed; to be more lucid, in the sense of the law's moral principles, those things transcending time and culture, good for examination of things, those things are good: those things are re-affirmed in the NT: it is the OT we're even directed to when the NT uses "Scripture", in most cases; but the law (in this guy's understanding) serves to show sinfulness--whereas the ceremonial and national portions thereof were to make for God a peculiar people in Israel (just as the NT paints Christ's sheep, in the same light, though not by the Mosaic law's ceremonial and ethnic aspects, which are done away, yet so many groups are eager to make for themselves resemblances, not satisfied in the plainness of Christ); I love the law to be examined thereby--for reproof and correction, for instance, though believe the promise that God has written it on our hearts as Christians (and thus His Spirit convicts us of sin, and leads us into repentance, when we err), but do believe what is said, that it is for the irreligious, the unbelieving, to show them their need. Insofar as I am reminded thereby of my continuous need-and the terror of God for those without Christ, rather than within, and thus maintains a healthy fear, Amen.
And yet, to wit, 'by grace my fears relieved', (though I firmly believe in the command, which the NT also repeats, that we're to fear God and keep His commandments, for us principally and as rule of all, Christ's word). I try to walk a narrow line, not annulling the law, but neither 'returning' (though I was not Jewish!) to it. "It is for liberty that Christ has set us free"--which liberty in Scripture (though in that specific context it's the law meant, whereas elsewhere it is broader) is from both sin (which the law makes more exceedingly sinful) and death.
I'm with you on seeing 'there is no good in me' (that is, of myself--Christ and Spirit abiding are good, and any 'good' I produce is because those works are 'wrought in God', not by my hand--God's). I find it interesting that God uses us as witnesses, in word and deed, to bear testimony; simultaneously, however, there is nothing we can do for the hearers, and those who practice methods and tactics as if otherwise are trespassing direly upon God's toes--whether claiming to do, or implying by what they do; we're both used as bearers of light (Christ within His disciples, who not live, but He, and they only in Him), as light in the world, as witnesses, as the stench of death to those who are perishing, and yet it is the Spirit that convicts the world of Sin, who works regeneration in those given sorrow unto repentance.
As for 'law', that is, 'Torah' and 'nomos' (the words I'm familiar with), I wish to be careful here: early Christians and pagans alike talked of Jesus's word as 'His law': there's are some precipices between our notions and theirs, though in either language is the sense of 'law' by which we mean that given to Moses. So insofar as the sense differ I do not repudiate Christ's 'law', nor God's perfect, good, Holy, (though from our view a curse) 'law', and wish to live under the 'law' of Christ (the reign of His grace, obedience to His convicting and leading, able only to trust, and watch Him work--though diligent to be obedient and press on, but knowing any success is His), yet of course not under the curse of 'the law'.
And after all that, I think it demonstrates that this is why I want to learn the original languages, and do so well, and pay careful attention to how the words are used: though irregardless of how far I can go, or am permitted by God, in such endeavors, Christ is primary, trust is all we can 'do' (which Christ took aback--since it's not a work--those who asked God what they could do, and said the work was to trust on Him!), grace is enough. I do not think that it's not that Christians do not do works: they're saved to good worsk, to being upright; but where the trespass occurs, as state before, is when they think that it's by works, rather than Christ's merit, that is pleasing: apart from Christ no 'good work' can please God. May we live under grace's reign, Christ's, God's, Spirit's, reign, and work knowing nothing in ourselves is good, but nevertheless we want to obey (new desires) for His glory, and not for our credit: above all, however, that 'work' which Christ commanded: to believe on Him.
It's hard to write about this since to say 'work' or 'works' in our language immediately leads people to thinking 'as opposed to faith', or 'works righteousness', or 'thinking ourselves able (when we're not in ourselves) to please God', etc. etc., so for fear of someone taking it thus, I always end-up qualifying, qualifying, qualifying: I would not want to be as the 'free gracers' who preach license (God forbid we continue in sin without care, conviction, or supposing ourselves sons while never being disciplined by God, which they claim is okay) [usually called antinomians], nor legalists (in the sense you give: thing is, all the definition I've seen on this site posted over a few days, are ways the word is used, and validly so). It's a really thin line--and I've nearly been caught by either such camps before really being taught by able preachers and godly men, and taking to the word.
I write this, though, so if you see any problems, let me know and I'll check it out. Thanks. : )
