Talk:Legalism (theology)/Archive 1

Stephen, I wonder whether the article would be better titled Legalism (Christian). I think that in some cases (casuistry) theological legalism would not have pejorative connotations, and in some cases it would not be Christian (shari'a, Halakha). Mkmcconn 03:41 May 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * Another option would be to expand the article to include these as well, with a subsection for each; the present article would then comprise the Christian subsection. Wesley 03:56 May 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * Good point, but I kept the tag fairly broad so that other types of legalism (if they're really called that, and I'd like to the refs) can go into the article without renaming it, simply by fixing the lead paragraph -- unless another disambiguation is called for. SCCarlson 03:57 May 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * I modified the description on the disambiguation page (Legalism), to allow for broader treatment under this page. Mkmcconn


 * I should add, though, that I doubt whether "Legalism" is a proper term under which to treat positive views of law and customs, and related issues. This measure is just a step intended to take things in a more inclusive direction.  Mkmcconn 04:06 May 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * By my understanding, legalism is considered a flaw in Christianity because of one understanding of the doctrine of grace: the notion that humans cannot earn salvation by obeying a code of religious customs or ethics, but must place their trust on faith that Jesus made atonement for them on the cross. Without this unique notion of salvation by faith, the issue of legalism does not arise for Judaism or Islam; their position instead is that believers can in fact obey the code of laws well enough to be saved, and that salvation comes through that obedience.  Debates over strict or looser interpretation of the rules is something different in these religions than for Christianity -- IHCOYC 04:41 May 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * The problem I'm considering, is how best to discuss this without creating an inherently slanted article. Because legalism is, as the article presently says, usually used as a pejorative term, it implies a critical view of certain positive views of the law, or of any obligatory regulation or custom. That's where the problem lies for an article in an encyclopedia. Mkmcconn \


 * For example, I very much doubt that any Jew would think in the terms you have just described, about the obligations of the Halakha. It is closer to a true description of Islam, as I've been informed, but even in this it is not the same, because the sense in which law "saves" is very different than what a Protestant Christian means by "salvation".  Mkmcconn \


 * So, I'm trying to run through my mind various ways to treat an inherently POV issue (An article on negative Protestant views regarding those religious views which are favorable toward laws and regulations), without on the one hand implying that these views correctly represent those of whom they are critical, or on the other hand erring by implying that this very important issue(especially among dispensational fundamentalist Protestants) is not worth describing. Mkmcconn 04:57 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

I think a good word to describe "those religious views which are favorable towards laws and regulations" might be asceticism. At least that's the word the OCA seems to use to talk about "good works" that are intended to train us and help us learn how to repent. The legalism debate in protestantism isn't just about the role of good works in salvation; in some circles it's also about whether it's a sin to play cards, dance, go to the movies, etc. etc. This might make it easier to relate to legalism in Judaism and Islam, and especially to the disagreements within those religions along these lines. I also have another angle that we can work on NPOV'ing:


 * Asceticism would be a good example of what might be meant, if a Protestant pointed to legalism in Orthodoxy. But it's more complicated than that.  Many Protestants, especially Fundamentalists, and those of the dispensationalist stripe particularly, consider even the Catholic use of sacraments and liturgy, and their prescribed, customary prayers, feasts and fasts, and virtually everything else to be in error because it is "legalistic".  So many different things are conflated under this one word, that it is virtually impossible to distinguish them.  In short, anything whatever accompanying faith in Jesus Christ, if it is deemed necessary or useful to salvation, is very often called "legalism". Mkmcconn 07:00 May 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * I've attempted to add some discussion of asceticism and other areas of controversy. There seem to me to be two issues here.  One is the soul's relationship to the material world, and to what degree it can be improved or harmed by it.  Another concerns the sources and legitimacy of the church's authority, who has the power to make and enforce the rules.


 * Now, as to Judaism and Islam, I think that to the extent that we make it clear that the article is talking about a Christian affair, that's all that really ought to be done. If similar debates to the Christian debate over legalism occur in those faiths, different labels are used.  -- IHCOYC 14:35 May 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * One 'nother thing; if we want to integrate it with what we have done here, someone should undertake a more elaborate discussion at ascetic. -- IHCOYC 18:27 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Another critique of satisfaction theory of the atonement is that if God were required to sacrifice His Son in order to satisfy the Law, this implies that there is something separate from and higher than God that we're calling the Law. I've read a number of Eastern Orthodox theologians aim this critique at protestants, mainly when the satisfaction theory is the only theory of the atonement presented. According to them, this danger can generally be avoided by balancing one's view of the atonement with other analogies and images, as Augustine did. I bring this up here because a purely legal understanding of Christ's atonement would be potentially subject to this critique. Wesley 05:10 May 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * I suppose the biggest problem here is that, the Satisfaction theory and the theory of Forensic justification would not be discussed by Protestants as issues of legalism: exactly the opposite, in fact. So, the issue is similar to that which I've described above your comments. Mkmcconn \


 * In Protestant thinking, it doesn't quite work out subjectively the way that you describe it, Wesley. God isn't seen as being required to do anything that he hasn't determined from Himself to do.   The Law itself is understood as having been given by God in order to show the sinfulness of sin (cf. Rom. 7).  It is a display of the Holy character of God given through angels to Moses (or alternatively understood, given by God to Moses, who preached it - an angel [&alpha;&gamma;&gamma;&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&sigmaf; = messenger]), in order that man may perceive the glory of God, and know his will, without being destroyed by seeing Him face to face.  The "legal theory" or "covenant theology" does not place Law in any sense above God.  Rather, Law stands between men and God (of whose holy character the Law is a revelation), but because of sin men are condemned.  The Son is given to take away this condemnation, by bearing it in Himself, so that in the place of Law there is the revelation of God which brings life.  Christ's "satisfaction" is the epitome of his appearing in the likeness of sinful flesh, like us in all things except sin, even in bearing the wrath of God for sin; so that the condemnation of the Law is taken out of the way because Christ becomes the mediator where the Law formerly stood between men and God.  Where there was formerly condemnation because of sin, there is now redemption because of the cross.  It's not a Roman idea of court law, but the Jewish Scripture idea of God's word, Torah, that is in view.  Does this help? Mkmcconn


 * I don't disagree with the theology you've outlined; that's rather well said. I also don't think that's what Anselm taught. Many historians seem to think that in Anselm, our sin offended God in a way similar to how a feudal lord would take offense at being disobeyed, and that God's sense of feudal honor demanded full satisfaction. There's a lot of diversity in Protestantism, and a number of evangelists wind up preaching that we are guilty because of what Adam did (inherited guilt), and that we are indebted to Christ because He paid off the legal debt we owed to God the Father. The New Catholic Encyclopedia's article on atonement has no trouble seeing the change in theology brought by Anselm compared to the earlier church fathers. See Salvation in the Coptic Liturgy of St. Gregory the Nazianzen by Rodolph Yanney, professor of anthropology at the University of Colorado for the contrast between Gregory and Anselm. Wesley 16:43 May 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * That might be because I made an effort to "translate" the view in diplomatic terms. I used concepts and emphases that I anticipated might be equally acceptable to both points of view.  The differences are smoothed over for the sake of comparison, at the expense of those details which are most important for the sake of contrast.  On other issues, I'd like to have everyone's opinion about my latest long extension of the "Law discussion" suggestion.  I'm willing to initiate that project, or to abandon it, with your guidance. Mkmcconn 18:17 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

The more I look at the material underneath the opening paragraph, the more it looks like chat, to me; an invitation to running debate. I hope it doesn't come across as WikiLegalism, but I'm inclined to think that it may be impossible, or anyway inappropriate and POV, to try to detail all of the ways that people charge other people of being legalists, and the defenses raised by those people. Am I out to lunch, here? Mkmcconn 22:34 May 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think the best we can hope to do is accurately document how the term is used and why. I think this can be done in an NPOV fashion, as long as we don't try to explain anything else. In a nutshell, I think the key is the "strong" and "weak" sense - that it is accusation either that one believes in salvation by works (e.g. the Seventh-day Adventist Church is accused of this because they are said to believe that one must keep the Sabbath in order to enter heaven) or that one places undue restrictions on other believers (e.g. the Southern Baptist church is accused in this sense because of the traditional ban on dancing, etc.). If we can convey this and illustrate it with examples I think we'll be fine. kpearce 01:20 May 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * But, even if we were able to document how it is used, why should we? Seventh-day Adventism, for example, is "said to believe ..." That may be so, but that isn't really informative.  "The Southern Baptist church is accused ...", but so what?  Do we really want to write a gossip column? Mkmcconn \


 * My present thinking is that a new article should be started, perhaps called Law (theology). Under an article like that, the various views toward law and regulations can be treated.  I started an essay on the subject, that might be useful for that purpose.  See below Mkmcconn 15:55 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Christian views of Law
Unlike Judaism and Islam, Christian scriptures and tradition describe a tension between salvation as an accomplishment of God, and a legal conception of personal justification. A just man, in Christianity, is not the one who has disciplined himself in Halakha or shari'a or a comparable code of conduct. The one who is justified, is the one who confesses himself to be a sinner, who looks outside of himself to the mercy of God, for the forgiveness of his sins and for the power to overcome temptation toward sin.

Consequently, effort has been expended by Christian thinkers to define an orthodox doctrine of God, by far greater and more deliberate than the effort to codify any detailed canon of justice, or rules of behavior. The thrust of all Christianity, is toward understanding and applying the grace of God. Grace is not a code of rules but rather the saving purposes and actions of God, especially as revealed in Jesus Christ, and in the Church which is conceived to bear an organic relation with Christ which is as real and as vital as that which the human body bears to its head. This vital relation with God, through Jesus Christ, is the entire emphasis of Christianity.

This does not mean that the Christian churches have not developed codes, and even entire legal systems - indeed, they have: some of which rival any other for detail. However, these codes are not the contents of Christianity, as they are for Judaism and Islam, but rather they are conceived to be a relatively malleable consequence of faith, reliable insofar as they are an expression of habitual, faithful reliance on Christ.

What do you think? Mkmcconn 15:55 May 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * This looks very promising. It will need to discuss the role of canon law, the most obvious legal code in the church, and the role of other documents like churh and denomination bylaws, things like the United Methodist "Book of Discipline" and so forth. Wesley 16:43 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Then, with that encouragement I'll continue; keeping in mind that this is just a guideline for how an article like this might be developed:

The tensions of grace and law as expressed in the divisions of Christianity
This tension between the grace of God and legal conceptions, between faith and faithfulness, is prominently expressed in the divisions among Christian churches. A brief and very general survey can easily illustrate this.

In Roman Catholicism, especially since Augustine, the problem of sin is represented as primarily legal (although not exclusively so). That is: sin is a problem of guilty lack of righteousness. The removal of the stain of guilt, therefore, and the acquisition of God's perfect principle of life in Christ, becomes a fundamental concept in the understanding of forgiveness of sins and a righteous life, in Roman Catholicism. The life of Christ is obtained through the transactions of a sacramental economy of grace, given in Baptism, and in the Holy Eucharist, as well as all the other sacraments of the Church. When a Christian performs the duties of a Christian, it is God who first formed this dutiful life in him. The faithfulness of a Christian is objectively valuable because its origin is from God, deposited by Him into the Christian's life, from out of which, by faith working through love for God and one's neighbor, the Christian lives out God's saving work.

Protestantism for the most part has an even more commandments- and ordinances- oriented approach to the understanding of law, sin and salvation. The Westminster Shorter Catechism, for example, asks, "What is sin?"; the answer given is, "Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God". Original sin is classically conceived as the failure of Adam to keep God's commandment perfectly; and salvation through Christ is understood as His perfect obedience to God's commandments, offered in His body on the cross as a sacrifice for sinners, so that forgiveness is received through belief in the sufficiency of the sacrifice of the Son of God on the cross. This sacrifice is understood primarily and almost literally as a legal transaction: a contractual exchange of purchase, the righteous exchanged for the unrighteous, payment resulting in God's possession of those thus obtained, when they believe. Condemnation comes through law, but salvation comes through the sacrifice of Christ, and union with Christ through the Spirit which raised Christ from the dead. Faith in Christ's continuing intercession for sinners leads the grateful, forgiven sinner to turn more and more from confidence in his own accomplishments "under law" and to depend on Christ "under grace" instead, for his principle of acceptance with God and a life lived pleasing to Him. The laws of a Protestant are simply descriptive of what this life of faith looks like.

In Eastern Orthodoxy, in contrast, the basic problem of Man and of sin is not best described in terms of Law at all. Instead, the issue is more basically Man's lack of love for God, ingratitude which comes through ignorance of God and fear of death. Sin is an empty way of life, contrasted with the fullness of God. The Law is only one way that this awareness of personal alienation from God might be brought to mind: and it is not necessarily the best way. Eastern Orthodox traditions of prayer focus on overcoming self-serving passions, which are manifest as pride, greed, envy, and other forms of covetousness, which is idolatry. The disciplines of Orthodoxy, such as hesychasm, or the liturgical calendar, are not mechanisms for attaining meritorious standing with God. Merit is thought to be a legal or contractual notion, which is rather irrelevant to the basic problem of sin. Rather, these are ways by which the worshipper of God may become habituated in a knowledge of his sinfulness and a sense of his profound need of God, so that he may train himself to hunger and thirst for the knowledge of God more than for the needs of his body. Therefore, although the canons are prescribed which regulate the entire Christian life, in Orthodoxy, these rules have no legal connotations, except as principles of order and discipline in the life of the Spirit. They are not means by which merit of life is obtained. Rather, they are patterns of behavior through which an empty way of life is exchanged for the fullness which is in God.

In each case, the tension between law and grace is displayed, but understood differently. Nevertheless, in every case these views are made more subtle than they appear by two millenia of continuous deliberation.

Does this still look like a promising direction? I think that each of these discriptions can be tweaked, but I am pretty sure that each can be rather thoroughly documented. Mkmcconn 17:39 May 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think this looks good, but it isn't an article on legalism, and we must say something about legalism, so my suggestion is this: let's place this article in "Law (Christian Theology)" (or somewhere similar, if anyone has a better idea) and write a new and very short article for legalism, perhaps something like the following:

Legalism is a pejorative term in Christian theology refering to excessive fixation on law, good works or codes of conduct, diminishing the importance of the grace of God. For a full discussion of the debate concerning the place of law and good works in Christianity, see Law (Christian Theology).

See Also: Sola fide, Antinomianism


 * I think this solution would neatly avoid being a "gossip column", as you put it, remain NPOV and still provide all the useful, objective facts about the subject. What does anyone else think? kpearce 23:46 May 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * It's not the opening paragraphs that bother me, as much as the discussion that follows. Although, what you have above, Kpearce, would serve as well as what is there at the moment, I think. Mkmcconn 03:48 May 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * One minor problem I see is that we already have a rather brief article on religious law. It could be argued that the Christian approach is distinctive enough to merit separate treatment; also, that the wholesale encorporation of all that's been done here might weight the article overwhelmingly in favour of Christianity.  (I think that's more the problem of those who would write more about other religions' laws, but it may create a problem of perception.)  Would it be better to start a separate article on law in Christian theology, or to put all this material in a ===Christianity=== section of the existing text? -- IHCOYC 01:19 May 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * The religious law entry might a good place to point out that the Christian view of the place of Law in religion is distinctive (something near to what it says presently), and then there are the sub-subtleties. But, I don't know... It would be an enormous challenge.  Mkmcconn 03:48 May 15, 2003 (UTC)